Constitution of the USA - Amendment II
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.
What does it mean to have the right to bear arms?
When the Constitution was signed on September 17, 1787, federalists claimed the new government would only have limited powers expressly delegated to it. This wasn’t enough for anti-federalists like George Mason, who wanted explicit guarantees to certain rights in order to prevent any potential encroachment by the federal government.
One of them was the right to keep and bear arms. Mason wrote:
“A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State”
At present, out of the world’s nearly 200 constitutions, three still include a right to bear arms: Guatemala, Mexico, and the United States; of these three, only the last does not include explicit restrictive conditions.
Shabbat 63a
Mishnah: A man may not go out with a sword, nor with a bow, nor with a shield, nor with a round shield, nor with a spear. If he has gone out [with any of these] he is liable for a Chattat. Rabbi Eliezer says: They are ornaments for him. But the Sages say: They are nothing but an indignity, for it is said, "They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears unto pruning-books; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more" (Isaiah 2:4).
The Mishnah, in describing what one cannot go out with (a sword, a bow, a spear...) is referring
to what is permissible on Shabbat. Does this mean it would be permissible on all other days of
the week? Why might this be so?
גמ׳ אמר רבא מאי טעמא דמחתרת חזקה אין אדם מעמיד עצמו על ממונו והאי מימר אמר אי אזילנא קאי לאפאי ולא שביק לי ואי קאי לאפאי קטילנא ליה והתורה אמרה אם בא להורגך השכם להורגו
GEMARA: Rava says: What is the reason for this halakha concerning a burglar who breaks into a house? He explains: There is a presumption that a person does not restrain himself when faced with losing his money, and therefore this burglar must have said to himself: If I go in and the owner sees me, he will rise against me and not allow me to steal from him, and if he rises against me, I will kill him. And the Torah stated a principle: If someone comes to kill you, rise and kill him first.
According to this passage from the Talmud, under what circumstances may you kill someone? How might this relate to the Second Amendment of the United States?
One should not sell them either weapons or accessories of weapons, nor should one grind any weapon for them, nor may one sell them either stocks or neck-chains or ropes, or iron chains — neither to idolaters nor Cutheans.
The Talmud does not forbid weapons, but it does forbid selling weapons and their accessories to certain groups of people ("neither to idolaters nor Cutheans"). How might this relate to gun control today? What might be considered "accessories" today?
(8) When you build a new house, you shall make a railing for your roof, so that you do not bring blood on your house if anyone should fall from it.
ר' נתן אומר מניין שלא יגדל אדם כלב רע בתוך ביתו ואל יעמיד סולם רעוע בתוך ביתו שנאמר (דברים כב, ח) ולא תשים דמים בביתך:
Rabbi Natan says: From where is it derived that one may not raise a vicious dog in his house, and that one may not set up an unstable ladder in his house? As it is stated: “You shall not bring blood on your house” (Deuteronomy 22:8), which means that one may not allow a hazardous situation to remain in his house.
How would you relate the Torah's principle of "you shall not bring blood on your house" to guns in a home today?
Please note the Torah did not forbid the making of flat roofs, dogs, or ladders; it forbade dangerous ones. Do you think this distinction applies to guns? Why or why not?
Bavlu Sanhedrin 37a
For this reason, one individual was created first, to teach that anyone who causes one life to be lost from Israel it is as if they have destroyed the entire world. And anyone who saves one life from Israel- it is as if they have preserved an entire world.
1. Why is causing the life of an individual as if one has destroyed the entire world?
2. Can causing the loss of a life and saving a life ever be in conflict?
3. How can you understand this in terms of gun control?