Hello everyone, luckily the media right now is focused on Trump's attacks on the press or heath care in order for gun control debates to be more lax. First, I think I have to clarify that I myself am a pacifist as a result of having "experienced" a war first hand as a child. Experienced is I think as high as I should go because nobody I knew died nor did we encounter any real life threats being in an active war zone, probably 20 miles off the front lines. The closest artillery shells hit also maybe 2 miles away. So it wasn't too bad, but as a child I didn't know that and it was enough to make me into a pacifist. America has the 2nd amendment which most people know of: 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. Interestingly enough "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is highlighted while the first part of the amendment doesn't seem to get any free press. Is it a valid interpretation that only a "well regulated militia" should have the "right to keep and bear arms"? Doesn't this right simply protect militia in order to maintain the security of a state (i.e. Virginia) and not include the right of an individual? Never mind gun laws after that. I would like to understand why this includes the individuals...
No. The first part explains why the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. In order to have a well regulated militia, the people need to be armed. It says "the right of the people", not "the right of the well regulated militia". Not that it would matter though. "Well regulated" in 1791 meant basically "in good order, and well trained", not really how we think of it today as "regulated by the powers of government". Militias then and now means non-professional fighters. A militia can be created and run by the government, like most countries' national guards, but not necessarily. I don't get how people can misinterpret the 2nd amendment, it's pretty clear and simple. It shouldn't be open to misinterpretation. Its merits are still open to debate though, as everything else.
The presented interpretation is in conflict with the very nature of the bill of rights, and what its intended purpose is. It suggests that the founding fathers, who saw fit to believe that the public should be able to speak unfavorable opinions of the government without fear of legal repercussions, decided immediately after such to change course, and address the ability of the government to maintain its authority by calling on the public to take up arms whenever it was deemed fit, and then immediately afterward, change course once again and focus on how the public should be protected against government overreach and interference of various rights. The concept simply makes no logical sense. If the united states federal government believed it necessary to maintain a military force during the ratification periods, for whatever reason, they would not have attempted to cram such a concept into what is currently the second amendment. There would be absolutely no reason for them to not spell it out elsewhere, in an entirely different section of the united states constitution, separate from the bill of rights which is intended to restrict government authority.
The last 2 posts covered it, but I have a question to support it. Would your interpretation mean that militia members cannot be denied the right to carry a gun? If so, my rights were violated by the Federal government, Texas Air National Guard, and the state of Texas while I was in the guard. I was not allowed to carry a gun during that time. So either your interpretation is misguided or my rights were denied under the Constitution.
In order to understand the Second Amendment, one must rely on those who originally had a hand in drafting it and getting it ratified. Shall we begin? "On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823 Using that admonition as our guide, let us consult those Jefferson refers us to. "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788 (Mason refused to sign the original Constitution as it lacked a Bill of Rights) "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787 "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of." - James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788 “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788 The militia is the whole body of the people according to those responsible for the Second Amendment. Now, what exactly, is meant by the term well regulated? First a modern view and then we'll return to those responsible to see if the modern view is consistent: "The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it." http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm “ The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. ...To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped.” Alexander Hamilton “Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?, Patrick Henry 3 Elliot Debates 168-169. “The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” Patrick Henry 3 Elliot, Debates at 386. “To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…” (LIGHT HORSE HARRY) LEE, writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic (1787-178 Finally, Chief Justice Joseph Story of the United States Supreme Court, and nominated by James Madison, had this to say: "The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. ...The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic..." – Joseph Story. Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. 3 vols. Boston, 1833. Also see: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm These quotes brought to you by PF's B.O.R. Gang
No. The right to keep and bear arms protected by the 2nd belongs to "the people" Not "the state" Not "the militia". Not "the people in the militia" - but The People. The same people mentioned elsewhere in the constitution and, specifically,. the bill of rights. As established by the SCotUS in 2008: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
The last time we had this kind of "debate," Xenamnes admonished me: "Some individuals simply do not understand why a topic is of such importance to others. When that is the case, it is necessary to provide a calm, detailed breakdown of why the matter is important. It does not mean one is ignorant, rather it means one does not possess the same familiarity as another." mihapiha has been here a number of years, so it's hard to fathom that he /she has not gotten the answers for these questions before now. Be that as it may, I'd like to take you back to one of the earliest United States Supreme Court rulings and delve just a bit deeper into what you just said: "The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) * The United States Supreme Court admits the Right exists * The Right is not granted by the Constitution. It exists by way of unalienable Rights * The right to keep and bear Arms is not, in any manner, dependent upon the Constitution for its existence That is probably impossible for people who have lived in countries without a Declaration of Independence and First Principles to comprehend. Despite the efforts of the left, the United States Supreme Court has admitted we have an individual Right to keep and bear Arms, unconnected with military service. The downside was that the Court legislated from the bench and inferred that the government is in the Rights granting business. They aren't and we're hopeful that Trump's Supreme Court nominees will all be confirmed during his presidency and that we will settle this issue for a few more generations.
There are so many great responses. Thanks everyone. I'll try to address everything and ask further questions in the process. For give me, but English is a second language, so it seems I just happen to pay attention to the first part of the amendment in order to get to my understanding of it. Based on what I quoted and made bold, does this mean the purpose of the first part of the amendment is that the people to have a right to bear arms against a "well regulated militia" which is "being necessary to the security of a free state"? That doesn't seem to make sense to me. I thought that the interpretation I presented implied that the people had a right to form a militia and protect the security of a free state if they wanted to. It implies overreach by their or another state, the federal government or a third party against their will. Militia to me implies a non government controlled military body especially in the 1800s. The idea of the amendment at the time I thought was more based on overreach by some form of government and not necessarily the own one. The freedom to bear arms (i.e. muskets) in a militia would help the people protect themselves as they saw fit independent of interference from England, France, Spanish or Native Americans. I thought that primarily these peoples were the purpose of the amendment in the first place, and not a non existent Washington D.C. (at the time) overreaching... I don't understand laws in the US. It was just my understanding of the text and I wanted to know why for Americans it included private citizens bearing arms without being part of a militia. Oddly enough I didn't form an opinion, I just was curious to its interpretation.
to give right to the people. My understanding was as follows: The people have the right to form "A well regulated militia" because it's "being necessary to the security of a free state" and for that purpose the people in the militia have "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". Is that so misguided?
No. To protect the rights of the the people. One of those rights is the right to keep and bear arms - held by the people. Not the state, not the militia, not the people in the militia. The "right to keep and bear arms" is -broader- than simply having some capacity to serve in the militia.
The purpose of the BoR is to recognize unalienable rights that all people are born with. It doesn't grant those rights, it recognizes they exist, and tells the government that it cannot infringe on those rights. The first thing our founders put in the BoR was the right to say whatever you want. The second thing our founders put in the BoR was the right to bear arms. It seems logical that this was pretty important to them. Additionally, we have plenty of information on how the people who founded our government felt about the issue: https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-quotations-founding-fathers "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824 "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776 "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787 "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787 "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
Second language here too. Basically, in order to have a well regulated militia. You need an armed populace. Therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. If you take the weapons away, you also take away the ability to form a well regulated militia by the citizenry, and this way, the security of a free state is not ensured. Yes. Because unarmed people aren't a well regulated militia, if they don't have arms. If only the "militia" had the right to keep and bear arms, and the "militia" was defined by the state or federal government, it's no different from regular military forces. And the 2nd amendment wouldn't make any sense at all if that were the case. Especially since the Bill of rights is all about the rights of the people.
To start with, what does the word "infringed" mean today that it didn't in 1787? To answer your post: George Mason: “I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.” (Elliott, Debates, 425-426) Richard Henry Lee: “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 178 Patrick Henry: “The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” 3 Elliot, Debates at 386. Patrick Henry: “The people have a right to keep and bear arms.” (Elliott, Debates at 185) Tenche Coxe: “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” – Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788. Thomas Jefferson: “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”, Proposal for a Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950) Thomas Paine: “The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside… Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them…” I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 (1894) http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/rkba/ff_militia.htm A militia that is "well regulated" has never meant gun control. It means the militia members are well led, well instructed and well organized and equipped.
To the Founders, the Militia was "the whole of the people." There was also something at the time known as a "select militia" which was a semi-professional force - essentially mercenaries beholden to the state that paid their fees - which was a dire threat to liberty in the Founders' eyes. They believed a true citizen's militia, equally equipped and trained to match any military unit, was critical to the preservation of Liberty. “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.” Noah Webster “Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?” – Patrick Henry “Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American … the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” – Tenche Coxe (Emphasis mine)
The reason it is so often misinterpreted is because if it is not, then there is no possibility of federal gun bans.
The point then being that the amendment cannot fulfill its original intention because of the advancements in technology since. Why is it so important to Americans if it doesn't fulfill the original purpose then?
It was not so much an admonishment, as it was a recognition that not everyone speaks in the same terms, nor possesses the same level of understanding of a particular subject as others may. Would there have been reason for the founding fathers to have been specific about which uses of firearms were deemed legitimate, as opposed to simply protecting firearms ownership in general so that it might be utilized for any legitimate reason? Not even those living in the united states understand the law. They are written and crafted by those that speak in legalese terms rather than plain language, leading to a great deal of confusion. Noted. This argument has been presented many times, but it is often incorrect. The united state military may have access to superior weaponry than private citizens, but such weaponry cannot be utilized in warfare on united states soil without significant casualties as a result. Tanks and fighter jets are of no use in an urban area where the entire populace could be potential enemy combatants. That is why guerilla warfare is so effective, and so difficult to overcome. Beyond such, insurgents in various countries, who are limited to equipment that was in existence during world war two, have demonstrated that superior equipment is of limited effectiveness. Because firearms still remain a necessary and vital aspect of everyday life in the united states for so many.
This confuses me. In Europe you still can own firearms in a professional setting. Meaning if you're i.e. a hunter you can own firearms with the proper license. So even with our strickt laws in place in America, I doubt people in Wyoming or Montana would see any real difference. So I don't fully understand the point you're trying to make. The purpose of the second amendment was supposed to protect the people from governmental overreach, as pointed out here. This was true in musket times when the two opposing sides would meet on a battle field as they would in the American civil war. Even then the South didn't have the real capacity to defeat the north. I don't think that any amount of legally purchasable firearms in the US today even in a well organized militia would be enough to defeat the US army, US navy and US airforce, never mind the 16 or 17 intelligence institutions. This appears like a huge fantasy. Also I don't understand your point about "potential enemy combatants". We haven't had a war in the last century on this planet to my knowledge where more soldiers died than civilians. Every war the statistics in that regard becomes worse for civilians, and I doubt this is going to change in the near future because our perception of an "enemy" since the French revolution changed. (I'll explain what I mean only if asked, because it's kinda off topic) I understand that Americans want access to guns, which is their right after all. That wasn't up for debate really, or at least that wasn't my intention. My intention is trying to understand the reasoning for the 2nd amendment to protect the right of individuals who're not militia to buy firearms, especially if the original intention of the amendment can no longer really be fulfilled. It seems that in its very core, the second amendment became obsolete, because it no longer can fulfill the original purpose. To me this is understandable since it's a 2 century old law. The older a law, the less it's applicable to a modern society. Don't think we don't have this type of stuff on the other side of the pond too.
There's no "our" strict gun laws in Europe. The gun laws varies wildly from country to country. The Czechs have pretty loose regulations, and allows for guns for self defense, while the Brits have pretty strict gun laws. You're forgetting the part where this is not a reason itself to just forget about the 2nd amendment. You could make the argument that it's obsolete though, but it would still have to go through the proper process to remove it from the Bill of rights. This argument can be used to disarm the US armed forces, rather than the population, and still keep the 2nd intact. Also, armed citizenry did fairly well against the armed forces of the US in Vietnam and Afghanistan. Don't underestimate a rifle on the wall of every home. WW1 This has already been answered. Now this is where we can get into a discussion here. You're saying the second amendment is obsolete. I disagree. I think an armed populace has a place in western society in general.
a militia is a government regulated organization: the bill of rights recognizes rights the founders saw as PRE-EXISTING government. Now how can a right that pre-exists the formation of government possibly require membership in a government run organization to vest?
The militia clause is nothing more than a statement of principle. The first Constitution drafted in America was the Constitution of Virginia, which said it this way: “That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.” Every state Constitution had a similar statement of principle, and the phrase: “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state” does nothing more than give the same admonition to Congress that all the state governments were given. See, for example, how John DeWitt stated it: "It has been asserted by the most respectable writers upon government, that a well-regulated militia, composed of the yeomanry of the country, have ever been considered as the bulwark of a free people. Tyrants have never placed any confidence on a militia composed of freemen." John DeWitt, The Anti-Federalist Papers, p. 75 (M. Borden ed. 1965) of John DeWitt’s Why was this done? Because the Constitution, drafted and ratified before the 2nd Amendment, gave Congress the power to create a standing army if it wanted to. But the right which follows has nothing to do with the militia. Before the Constitution was ratified the states controlled their militias and they relied on the pre-existing individual RKBA as the source of militia arms. The individual militia member was required to produce his privately owned firearm for service. But the Constitution changed this. To achieve a Federalist desire for uniformity of militia arms, the Constitution gave Congress all power over the militia’s organization, training, discipline, and—most importantly—arms. See Article I Section 8: “Congress shall have power… To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia…” And this power over the militia and its arms is rendered absolute by the Article VI supremacy clause. This was all done before the 2nd Amendment was drafted. The states cannot arm their militias, and the individual citizen has no right to have any arms in the militias, absent Congressional consent. In effect, Congress was given the power to divorce the militia from its prior reliance on private arms. To quote the words given to Aragorn: “The way is shut.” And nothing about the 2nd Amendment speaks of a repeal of the vast congressional power over militia arms. The operative clause—recognizing the pre-existing RKBA—was included to ensure that this power of divorce is not a power to further control and destroy the original source of militia arms—the individual RKBA. In short, the grant of power over militia arms was not a grant of a monopolistic governmental control over all arms, including the arms kept by the people. Further, a simple reading of the operative clause shows it does not define a militia right. It does not say “militia arms,” nor “arms while in militia service” nor “arms suitable for militia service.” Indeed, the word “bear” arms can have a military context, but the word was hardly defined exclusively in a military context. And what is certain is the right is not just to “bear” arms but to “keep and bear arms”—with the word “keep” never having had a military context. So merely looking at the operative clause itself you can see the right is not one intended to be exclusively related to militia service. This is not surprising, since the word “right” cannot be associated with a limitation to militia service. We cannot read the amendment in a vacuum. Congress’ Article I Section 8 power over the militias gives it the total power to include—and exclude—a particular citizen from militia service. And Congress also has the total power to decide what—if indeed any—arms the militia member can have in service. If the RKBA is limited to militia service, then Article I Section 8 says it cannot be a right of the people. Instead, it becomes a privilege which Congress has the total power to grant or deny. And yet the words “the right of the people” can mean nothing other than the recognition of an individual right of the citizen. It is not a “state’s right,” and not merely because states don’t have rights, but because the word “people” refers to individual citizens (see, for example, the 10th Amendment and the clear distinction between the words "people" and "states."). Finally, the phrase “the right of the people” is found in three different Amendments, and it recognizes individual rights every time it is used. The 1st Amendment uses it to recognize the individual rights of assembly and petition. The 2nd Amendment uses it to recognize the individual RKBA. The 4th Amendment uses it to recognize the individual right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Therefore, the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” refers to a pre-existing right unconnected with the congressional domination of militia service, and the preamble is nothing more than a restatement of the principle that the best way to secure the state and keep it free from tyrants is to avoid a standing army when possible and instead rely upon the militia system Congress had the power to maintain. At least that is my opinion. Agree or disagree as you will.
For me, there is no purpose that mitigates the fact that the people already had and continue to have an unalienable Right to keep and bear Arms. I don't need a license nor a permit - no more than I need governmental permission to join any given religion or to say what's on my mind. And you are dead wrong. Americans are better armed than the military. We still compose a superior force. Just because the government has tanks, aircraft, etc. is irrelevant. The families of soldiers live in the same neighborhoods that the regular citizenry live in. The government would not use those weapons indiscriminately in their own back yard.
Granted, the laws differ from country to country, but that wasn't the point. The point was that even with strikter gun laws in a more European sense, gun ownership might not change dramatically for the people, even though we do not have a right to bear arms. The point was, that even with a non-existent second amendment not much has to change. So again what was your point of "firearms still remain a necessary and vital aspect of everyday life in the united states for so many."? What part of the second amendment protects the vital aspect of everyday life vs. a non-existent second amendment in a more European (i.e. Switzerland or the Czech Republic) sense? The misconception in the fantasy of being able to overthrow your own government can be seen in Syria and not Vietnam. Millions people died vs. 58.000 on the American side in Vietnam This fantasy of being able to overthrow your own government is as wrong now as it was centuries ago when peasants thought they had a chance armed with wood against knights. Robin Hood is a myth. It isn't true. Peasants hardly ever manage to overthrow the king, slaves rarely win a revolt against their owner. It just doesn't work that way in the real world. Independent on the weaponry you legally acquired, it is still beneath the capability of your own government, and for good reason. You don't want the citizenry armed with rocket launchers and nukes. The fantasy of overthrowing your government falls also apart because people believe that they have the support of unnamed, unknown and well organized people. They expect a clear divide like in Civil War times I presume where all your neighbours and communities will definitely be on your side, and that the government will have no support at all. Trump is a great example for this. Independent of what he does, over a third of the people will support him. So even if the other two thirds would try to overthrow him with their legally obtained firearms, I doubt they would have much success, because of the lacking capabilities and organizational structure vs. the US government's. I think you can agree with that, even though he lives in an area where politically speaking 80% or more didn't vote for him, and even though many on the left label him as a fascist... WW1 was a century ago I (to my point), also I read so often in English sources that they exclude the Spanish flue which I don't understand. The flue peaked 1918-20 while the war ended (according to the books) in November of 1918. They seem to forget that the Ottoman Empire hadn't surrendered until 1924... Why does an armed populous have a place in western society in general? Especially in the 21st century? Is it based on safety or something? That would make the USA the safest country in the world with 88.8 firearms per 100 citizens and second safest Yemen with 54.8 firearms. Very dangerous on the other hand would be Japan with only 0.6 firearms per 100 citizens.
