In the wake of San Francisco's ongoing attempt to ban handguns, a gun-rights group is calling for the city's supervisors to ban the Golden Gate Bridge. "Several city supervisors want to ban handguns in San Francisco on the mere presumption that such a law would prevent crimes, accidents and suicides," points out the founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, Alan Gottlieb. "Well, it is an absolute certainty that closing the bridge would prevent suicides, and perhaps many accidents, as well. And just for the sake of argument, one seriously might question whether any of the more than 1,300 fatal falls from the bridge since 1937 were cleverly-concealed homicides." In other words, the Second Amendment Foundation is satirically explaining that just as a bridge's utility would mitigate against attempts to ban it based on its misuse as a platform for suicide jumps, banning guns overlooks the benefits of an armed citizenry--millions of crimes prevented, peace of mind, a check on the government, etc.

I don't mind this too much actually. The way I have always read the 2nd amendment is that it applied to the federal government only, as did all the amendments, until the 14th amendment "incorporated" them all (excluding the 2nd in liberal jurisprudence) into state boundaries. Rather than conceding that the 14th amendment did such a thing as to incorporate all amendments (including the 2nd at least for conservatives), we should say that it did nothing of the sort and that the states retain their sovereignty and have the authority to ban many things which federal government cannot ban.

Obi Juan: you're right, I think, about the constitutional point. But apart from the constitutionality of local and state handgun bans, isn't there a question of the bad side-effects of these laws? Lots of constitutional laws are bad laws.

Not for nothing and because I have nothing really to nit-pick here, the correct phrase is "peace of mind," as in one's mind is at peace. It is not "piece of mind" as in I'm going to give you a piece of my mind.

The only thing banning hand guns in SF will do is insure the criminals will be the only ones with guns HELLO how does that make anybody safer.

So in some way this makes one think that maybe they will get stuck in a traffic jam, then think of all the gun violence that is going on in the area? Maybe step one should be, people who dress up as women,who actually have a penis and make them collect the tolls on the bridge. Is traffic not bad enough in Cali, where they can shut down a major bridge over gun violence? Where is the thought process in that! Wow, the Pats are actually a dynasty!!!!

Thanks for the correction, TGA. Typo corrected in the original.

Hopefully Maury is being intentionally ironic, as the gun-rights group is. Of course they're not trying to shut down the bridge. It's blatantly dumb - they're trying to draw a parallel between that and the blatantly dumb idea of forcibly disarming the law-abiding.

BTW, I have to quibble with obi and brigid (and I hope you guys don't mind). The 2d Amendment mentions a well-regulated militia, not a well-regulated people; it then goes on to say that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This implies to my mind that it's police and other armed forces that are controlled specifically by law in this matter.

This leaves some wiggle room on how much restriction constitutes actual infringement, and hence the debate. I think the Framers reasoned that a citizen, bound by other laws, would be sufficiently checked; and the right of the law-abiding to defend themselves superceded any state interest.

Never forget that we were founded by citizens fed up with government meddling and state fiat. We've lost a lot of that spirit since then, but it is the motivating power behind the creation of our country and its Constitution.

Interesting interpretation, Nightfly. I'd like to make two points. 1. I believe "Regulated" here means functioning well because disciplined, trained, supplied, not "controlled by law." The word has changed a bit from what I've been told. 2. The contrast between militia and peole seems off to me; the militia was less official than police forces or National Guard etc. It would have been formed from able bodied men among the people at large, who would sometimes bring their own guns. Thus, having guns amoung the people would be a condition of its being able to produce a well functioning (both well supplied and well trained with firearms) militia when needed.

But I must admit I just don't understand your angle. Oddly, you seem to read the main clause and the secondary clause as completely unrelated in meaning, but the first cluase is supposed to be giving a reason or explanation for the main clause.

Sorry to confuse, Brigid - I didn't clarify what I thought. I wasn't trying to read those phrases separately, I only wanted to study where the regulatory power applied - to the group rather than the individual.

The English is curiously written; today we might write: 'Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' (Then we'd have to gussy it up with some legalese, but you know...) I would then agree that the first clause is offered as a justification for the second. (I don't think it's the only one.)

I think I can understand your first point - you read the 2d Amendment, roughly, thus: a militia needs to be well-provisioned and well-managed, so the people need to have their own guns. From there, your second point: the police and such are different from yesterday's militia - when you join now, the state gives you a gun and a lot of training. (Good so far?) Therefore some restraint is in order when a person is not a member of such a group; the conditions (if you will) for their owning a firearm are already satisfied. The problem I see with that is that it turns one of our rights into a gift of the state, and I can't conceive that the Framers would have done it that way, given their fight for independence. I think that's why they mentioned "the security of a free state." To keep a state free and safe requires free, safe citizens.

A disarmed populace is at the mercy of any power, foreign or domestic. It's not inconceivable in our day and age that a decent resident of Paterson or Jersey City can help to frustrate a terrorist plot with his own .30-gauge; certainly, there are many times every year that a lawful firearm prevents violent crime. It's not just a matter of heading for the hills because the ATF wants to kick in your door and deport your five-year old cousin to a Communist state. [Just as a "for instance." ;)]

Sorry to sound so Patrick Henry and all, but the last resort - open revolt - has to be possible in order to be a credible check on state power. A government is by nature coercive (albeit necessary) and has to justify its actions, not the other way around. Realizing all this, the Framers gave us this resort. Thanks for bearing with the long reply. Best, NF

HEY OBI U are a stupid WHINING LIBERAL WHO NEEDS TO LEARN THE HISTORY OF THIS GREAT COUNTRY!!! THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS FIRST AND FOREMOST IS A COLLECTIVE RIGHT TO THE PEOPLE AND THE STATES, MORON!!! SECOND COME TRY AND TAKE OUR HANDGUNS U WILL JUST BE ANOTHER SPIC LYING DEAD ALONG THE ROAD!!!! HOW P.C. IS THAT FOR U, DUMBASS?!!!!!!!!!