I should do more columns like this though,
J.

It is of course debatable whether the Founding Fathers had the current situation in mind when they drafted that Amendment. Most reasonable historians agree that the right to ‘keep and bear arms’ reflects the fact that in most other countries the people were not allowed to have arms by their totalitarian regimes.

So, what the writers of the Constitution were saying was: ‘No way is that going to happen here and we’ll keep our leaders reasonably honest by not allowing them to have the monopoly on violence.’ Hence those militias that were explicitly mentioned.

Learned scholars have discussed endlessly the exact wording of these phrases, where even the placement of a comma becomes of dubious importance. It’s no use rehashing those arguments - most people interested in this debate are familiar enough with them.

I would say I’m on the side of those who see this Amendment as the written guarantee to the people, that they are allowed to and have the obligation to take up arms against their government when it would try to become dictatorial. In my view that doesn’t necessarily mean that any individual has, at all times, the right to have whatever kind of weaponry that he or she likes.

I’m not saying that’s the only way to interpret the Second Amendment but it is an entirely reasonable one. That doesn’t mean individuals shouldn’t have the right to defend themselves and have arms, within reason. This interpretation just would deny each and every person the unalienable right to turn his or her home into a complete arsenal,
J.

Also known as: “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.” (Second Amendment to the Constitution.)

This is the point, not crime.

The central point in my column was that since fewer people get killed by home-invading criminals than by their own guns it doesn’t make all that much sense to have these guns around. That is one conclusion I made and it does not depend on the actual amounts of deaths but simply the ratio between accidental (domestic dispute) death and the amount of people killed in their homes by criminals. It was an observation, by the way, not a call to forbid people from having these guns.

My second point was that while guns are not a problem if handled well, there are a Hell of a lot of idiots around who should not be trusted with hammer & nails, let alone guns. I’m not sure how you translate that into legislation but I think it should be a consideration when it comes to legislation. I.e. have very tough sentences for anyone found to be criminally careless/stupid with guns around the house.

I don’t think there are easy answers here but I think we owe it to innocent bystanders to try and make things safer.

For a non-Lebanese, I’m surprised how you nailed any random person’s feelin gs and emotions off the streets of Beyrouth.