h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: The Second Amendment and Its Meaning - A37214606
Author: Slartibartfast347 - U10681217

For Peer Review. Any thoughts for improvement? (This is a revision from an earlier draft just titled "The Second Amendment")

It's good. You seen this?
A872778

The Second Amendment to *what*?

>>the United Kingdom experienced 167 gun related deaths, while the United States witnessed over 29,000 in that same year<<

Ergo, if you live by the sword, you die by the sword

Even counting it as gun deaths per capita - which maybe you should do, the populations are hardly comparable...

The UK has a population of about 61 million, US has about 301 million - that makes

2.74 gun deaths per million people in the UK

and

96.34 gun deaths per million people in the US! That's more than 35 times as many.

I wonder if the recent demise of actor Charlton Heston, a prominent advocate of guns, will have any effect?

Incidentally it looks rather as if this A872778 got there (almost) first?

Websailor

You might compare this to the example of Switzerland.

Switzerland's military (army and airforce only, since it's landlocked!) is basically a militia - every male citizen is required to join the military if able, starting at age 19-25 - and women are encouraged to do so voluntarily. Anyone who doesn't join for whatever reason has to pay an extra 3% tax every year.

That's similar to the system in a lot of countries, from Germany to Israel. But this is where it gets interesting - Switzerland also has a "Schießpflicht" - a "duty to shoot". The soldiers don't *leave* the military as such, they go home with their weapon, uniform, and other equipment as reserves, and have to take part in obligatory shooting practices with their personal weapons every year.

Every solider - every man, basically - is required to keep his personal weapon at home and ready to use, so the military can be mobilised quickly at any time.

Recently, though, there was a case in which a young soldier used his official weapon to shoot a young woman in the street. There was a big debate about whether the weapons at home should be given up, but it's in their constitution...

So they passed a new law. Every soldier is *required* to keep his gun at home, but basically isn't allowed to have ammunition

A couple of things. You don't need subheaders but headers and quotes should be either in single quotation marks or alternatively noquotation marks and set p like this:

insert quote here- who said it

Oops! Posted this in the wrong spot!

One must remember that the writers of the Constitution and its amendments were not particularly well schooled in writing or in grammar. They were often farmers, doctors, businessmen, activists, or simply politicians. For many words, spelling was not even consistent among the colonies or their citizenry.

Even printer Benjamin Franklin was not up to the task of proofreader from the viewpoint of modern grammaticians. John Adams was said to have tried to get Thomas Jefferson to change 'inalienable rights' to 'unalienable rights'.

A more sensible, and practical, interpretation to the archaic grammar of the constitution's "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" would be:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State." Which implies that a government cannot be trusted to be always a servant of its constituency, and that the people have the right to revolt if their government is not responsive to their needs.


It is not the State that needs to be free, but the citizens that comprise that State.

With all that said, there are still constitutionally valid laws that keep some people from owning firearms, among them the mentally unstable and convicted criminals.

What is not entirely clear is what level of weaponry should be included in one's rights. Where do machine guns, grenades, RPGs, bombs, missles, ect. fall? It's safe to assume that the framers of the amendment did not consider canons to be personal firearms, although I'm sure that many property owners had them. And pistols were notoriously bulky, inaccurate, last ditch things. Nobody predicted that they'd become as powerful and accurate as man can now produce.

The the state needs to balance the individual's right vs the right of the established constabulary to be safe from extreme firepower in the performance of their legitimate duties. It seems that a heirarchal schema is required with 1) the federal military require the broadest selection weapons in their arsenal, followed by 2) state reserves, the 3) police, and finally the 4) public and private security personnel.

Thanks for all the great feedback!

A872778 is not an Edited Entry and is not in Peer Review, so you don't need to consider it.

Well - you would if it were currently being worked on, but the author seems to have Elvised...

Shame the author isn't still around, this could end up as a pretty good entry.

I thought that this entry was perety good. It reminded me of one I saw recently about typos in the us constitusion. I can't rember were it is right now but I'll try to find it if you want.

It may have been mentioned, but the title does not make it clear to which document the amendment is attached. This is a BBC website, and in international repository, so you cannot make the assumption that reader will be able to make the leap from 'Second Amendment' to 'The U.S. Constitution's 2nd Amendment'.

You'll probably want a title more clear and specific than it stands right now.

tut Ford's

The Second Ammendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

It's a good entry and I think could go to the Eds as it is.

Perhaps you've just been busy; but, if you are waiting for this to get picked up, it could still be the unclear title.

There are just too many documents that might have had a second amendment made to them. Otherwise, you could just shorten it to Second Amendment.

When you add, 'and its meaning' it sort of implies an opinion piece, which generally is not accepted into the Edited Guide.

Hi FordsTowel and McKay, I've emailed the Scout forum for some advice on this Entry

GB

"When you add, 'and its meaning' it sort of implies an opinion piece, which generally is not accepted into the Edited Guide."

That's not true.

The article I mentioned earlier is A28880382 and do you mean the guide does accept opinion pieces or the title doesn't imply an opinion piece.