is gun ownership a right or a privilege?

[2sense]

**Smith4506 **:

It looks to me like he thinks that the amendment was passed while the war was still going on. If you are correct, I would answer that “the founders” were not looking back at the war they just won because if they had actually considered it they would have realized that their militias had no chance of matching a professional army in the field. If the militia could defend The People then there would have been no need to create a Continental Army to win the war for them.

I would also point out that his opinion that “The amendment was to prove that the peoples’ will was most important” is incorrect. The measure was proposed by Madison to allay fears that the government would fail to stock the militia’s arsenals as I posted earlier.

I would finally point out that while a person is entitled to their opinion, posting it unsupported in GD when it conflicts with a supported assertion made by a previous poster is not exactly in the spirit of this forum.

But, as I said, I don’t believe that this was the intention.

---

Just my 2sense
No theoretical checks, no form of government, can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea. - James Madison

[Smith4506]

The militias certainly did not stand a chance going one on one with the British Army without help. Too many Americans ignore the fact that without massive French help, the Revolution most likely would have failed. Having said that, IMHO, the 2nd was a reaction to Washington’s complaints during the war that many of his troops had neither the arms to fight with or the training to use them effectively.

In the Federalist#29, Hamilton is quoted as saying

. If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper.

Hamilton also goes on to explain the composition and function of the militia:

emphasis mine.

“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 oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. 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 reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.”
"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude** that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.** This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.’’

also:

again, emphasis mine.

In times of insurrection, or invasion, it would be natural and proper that the militia of a neighboring State should be marched into another, to resist a common enemy, or to guard the republic against the violence of faction or sedition. This was frequently the case, in respect to the first object, in the course of the late war; and this mutual succor is, indeed, a principal end of our political association. If the power of affording it be placed under the direction of the Union, there will be no danger of a supine and listless inattention to the dangers of a neighbor, till its near approach had superadded the incitements of selfpreservation to the too feeble impulses of duty and sympathy.

Lastly, I thought I was merely clarifying the point the other poster was trying to make. I apologize if you took offense.

[Smith4506]

I forgot to add that throughout the Federalist Papers there are continual references to the British during discussions of national defense or military policy. For example, No.24 makes mention of possibility that the British and Spanish Empires may reconcile and pose an eventual threat to the emerging nation. No.25 carries on the same theme.

Did they see the militia as the answer to the British Army? Probably not, but did they did see the formation of the militia envisioned in #29 as a beginning towards a ‘well-regulated’ body that could ward off a foreign invader? IMHO, yes. Although the military that comes closest to this idea today is probably the Swiss ‘citizen soldiers’.

[Smith4506]

I forgot to point out that the sections of the Federalist I quoted supported both your contention and mine that the 2nd was in reaction to the ill-equipped and ill-trained volunteers that Washington had. The 2nd paragraph of the 2nd quote also supports my contention that the militia was also intended to be a counterweight to the creation of a standing army that would pose a threat to the liberties of the people.

Just how do you edit a post, anyway?

[barbitu8]

*Originally posted by justwannano *
**barbitu8
IMHO you are wrong.
The framers were looking at the picture they had in front of them. A war with the most powerful nation of the world. They knew the power of Britain and they knew that without the people they could never win and without the people they could not hope to hold the nation together. The amendment IMHO was to prove that the peoples’ will was most important.
IMHO It still is. **

As subsequent posters have put it better than I,with some nice citations, your position does not mean I was wrong. They needed the people but that does not mean that they thought the people had arms of their own. I reiterate, the only way to make sense of the 2d amendment is that interpretation. Else you have an introductory clause which is a complete non sequitor to the rest of the sentence.

Smith, you cannot edit a post. Only the moderators can.

[Hilander10]

I have read the preceeding post and found them for once to be well thought out, and generally not filled with the ignorance and emotion this type of debate usually incites. that said on to the subject at hand.

One of the reasons our founding fathers gave us the right “To Keep And Bear Arms” was because most were denied it in Europe. For the the most part our founding fathers were well educated and understood that the first step tward oppression is the removal of the populaces ability to resist. There fore the provided us with a means to do so.The right to arms is there so if we fail to change our government through the power of political pressure,(the vote)then we can do so through force of arms.
In response to the belief that the average peasnt of the 13 colonies were unable to afford arms, or more simlp lacked them is true falicy. If it were true the lack of a real navy and manufacturing facilities would have made an armed rebellion impossible. Chances are most had rifles if for nothing else hunting as that was a major way of both feeding ones family and earning a living. If nothing else one was maintained in the house for putting down animals quickly and humanly.
I know what your thinking how do you stop tanks with rifles. How could a group of common people hope to stop a massive military juggernaut. My answer ask Afganistan of Vietnam, or any number of countries that battled what they viewed as an oppressive government. Gurillia wars are brutal,ugly, and difficult to win with conventional forces. Examples of this are common throught history and undoubtably our founding fathers saw this. They knew what all free men should and that is you have only the right’s you can defend.

[Northern_Piper]

zwaldd, it seems to me that you’re saying that the “sentence” includes everything but the weapons disqualification, and therefore the weapons disqualfication lasts after the “sentence” is served. I’m saying that the weapons disqualification is part of the sentence, and therefore the sentence is not served until the weapons disqualification lapses.

This is not just a technical point - different parts of the sentence can last for different periods - the actual incarceration, the terms of probation, and so on, all have different end periods, but they’re all part of the sentence. The weapons disqualification is part of the sentence, and the felon hasn’t completed the sentence until all aspects of it have been completed.

And, in case you’re thinking of lifetime weapons disqualfications, there are other lifetime sentences as well. Life without possiblity of parole is one obvious one, as is life with parole. My understanding is that a lifer who gets parole after 20 years is still serving a sentence, and will until he dies - it’s just that he’s been released on conditions, such as checking in with his parole officer, etc. - a lifetime restriction on his liberty.

In short, the sentence lasts as long as its conditions restrict the felon - and weapons disqualification can be one of the elements of the sentence.

[justwannano]

Well it seems that I stirred up some controversy.Good.
Sorry if my debate tactics are not what they should be. Thats cause I don’t have any.
I’m sure that the framers didn’t just sit down one day and say "Hey fellas, Lets draw up a constitution that STMB members can debate in 2001."There had to be considerable thought BEFORE the actual draft.
If we are to learn anything from history maybe this discussion will turn some heads.

http://www.huntchat.com/showthread.php?threadid=4028

FWIW this forum is not dedicated to debate merely a chat room for hunters.Note what greatafricanhunter has to say.

[Brian_Bunnyhurt]

There is more semantics to this argument than meets the eye, and it is not merely Dr. Zieux’s argument about ownership. The key phrase and intention of “bearing arms” refers to what was known to be guns in those days, which were single-shot muzzle-loaders and did not include grendades, machine guns, semi-autos or even revolvers. It is too convenient to think that the founding fathers would have had modern weaponry in mind, with another set of tyrannical dangers, that being of gang violence in neighborhoods. The founding fathers were not known as dogmatic extremists, but practical people who usually knew a limit to an argument when they saw one. Remember, we are using their word for arms, they were not using our word.

[2sense]

**Smith4506 **:

I certainly did not find your post offensive.
I don’t have a problem with someone disputing my positions. That is just debate. Debate is why I come to this forum. I do get annoyed when posters come to a thread in GD to post their opinion. If you post an opinion that disagrees with an argument that I have already made then you are not debating, you are witnessing. I am going to attack those posts. If you have an opinion, great. There is a forum for expressing it. If you don’t want to back up your position then head over to IMHO.

( Pay attention here, Brian Bunnyhurt. As I noted, “bearing arms” refers to military service not “carrying a smoothbore musket”. If I’m right then your quibbling is pointless. )

Anyways, Smith4506, I am glad that you disputed my assertions because now we can debate. I just became aware of the informantion that I based my post on ( by way of Garry Wills’ A Necessary Evil: A History of American Distrust of Government ). I am eager to see if it holds up under the scrutiny of debate.

Allow me to clarify my position. I am arguing that the militia can not defend a free state. I am prepared to argue that “A well regulated Militia” is not “necessary to the security of a free State”. I do not doubt that these falsehoods were widely believed at the time of the Bill of Rights. I do not doubt that the new federal government was feared by many. I am arguing that Madison proposed the amendment to try to address those concerns. The article guaranteed that the federal government would not withhold the militia weapons that many felt were needed to defend against any federal tyranny.

I’m going to address the bolded parts of your quotes from Hamilton:

…that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.

There are a couple problems with this assertion.
It is false unless those citizens have supplies of the same equipment available in the same quantities as the army. If the citizens are underequiped then the army could still impose its will on those citizens.
The bigger problem is that there is no large portion of our society that is nearly as well trained, disciplined, and armed as a regular army. And there never has been.
Hamilton is feeding the myth.

This was frequently the case, in respect to the first object, in the course of the late war; and this mutual succor is, indeed, a principal end of our political association.

I agree that mutual succor is the reason for the political association. I also agree that states sent militiamen to fight in other states. I would even agree that those militia were helpful on the field of battle. They were helpful to the Continental Army but without it they had no chance to defeat the British.

I’m sorry if I sounded pointy as I made my points.
I’m generally pretty easy to get along with.

---

Just my 2sense

[SPOOFE]

It is too convenient to think that the founding fathers would have had modern weaponry in mind

If mediums such as phone conversations, TV, the Internet, and what-not is considered to be protected under “Free speech” (remember, phones and computers didn’t exist 200 years ago), why should weapons, that are simply general advancements to 200YO firearm technology, not be protected under the term “arms”? They’re still armaments, aren’t they?

---

Ah, 2sense, 2sense, 2sense… I believe this ground hath been covered before…

It is false unless those citizens have supplies of the same equipment available in the same quantities as the army. If the citizens are underequiped then the army could still impose its will on those citizens.

What the citizenry lacks in supplies, it more than makes up with in sheer numbers. Again, this has been covered before… the logistics of “preventive medicine”, waging war on home turf, urban warfare, guerilla tactics… etc. I know you’ve participated in Gun Threads before, so why do you pretend they never happened?

The bigger problem is that there is no large portion of our society that is nearly as well trained, disciplined, and armed as a regular army. And there never has been.

Again, the differential in quantity more than makes up for the differential in quality. Do you know how many people are in the army? Less than a million, even if you include the reserves. How many of those do you think will engage in conflict with their brother man? A very, very conservative estimate would be about half.

So, 500,000 well-armed, well-trained individuals versus 250,000,000 poorly-armed, poorly-trained individuals. Do you think each individual soldier, no matter how much training they have, would be capable of killing 500 other armed people?

Yes, and I’m anticipating your arguments… “They have helicopters, they have tanks, blah blah blah”… you’re missing the point. The huge discrepancy between “number of military” and “number of armed citizenry” is what prevents the very NOTION of an armed subjugation of the populace from ever arising in anyone’s mind. Nobody considers doing it because it’s just so damned impossible from a practical standpoint.

Of course, the whole “military subjugation” notion is one that would take a long time to put into effect. But by the time that it rolls around (say, thirty years from now, some ultra-popular General manages to worm his way into power or something), it’ll be too late to PREVENT. An armed populace is just one more ace in the hole to PREVENT such tyranny from ever arising.

[2sense]

Your memory is faulty, SPOOFE.
I haven’t participated in the gun threads here. I haven’t even read them. I did start one thread over on Fathom that, despite my best efforts, did turn into a gun thread. At the risk of losing my bleeding-heart credentials, I think that gun control is misguided. The violence problem in America isn’t caused by guns. They merely increase the death toll. Making a significant portion of the citizenry nervous won’t help stop the violence.

If I were controlling the Democratic Party, I would do my best to reassure the voters that they would have the guns at their disposal to remain free while I worked to strengthen the federal government enough solve the problems of the day. You know, like the federalists did. Those Hamilton quotes that Smith4506 posted would be a familiar refrain from my pulpit.

I have no interest in banning guns. I am comfortable with the level of control we have now. My interest here is the constitutional aspects of the debate. I came across the interesting argument that “to keep and bear arms” doesn’t refer to the individual citizen and, as I said, I want to see if it holds up.

I am no stranger; however, to the argument that a single army can not subjugate our entire nation, having taken just that position in the recent “You have one shot” thread. As I pointed out there, whether or not you have a sufficiently high force to space ratio to accomplish your political goal depends on the goal. If you aim to occupy the entire US you will need more than half a million troops. If, OTOH, your goal is to put down a regional rebellion backed by the local Guardsmen, an army is more than adequate. In any case, a quarter of a billion armed citizens aren’t enough to stop the army from marching wherever it pleases and violating the citizens there in any way they please. Even without the force multipliers that you mention ( helicopters, tanks ) the army would be unstoppable. The main advantage of a ( field ) army of 500,000 is that they can put nearly 500,000 troops on the battlefield. The citizens lack the organization to accomplish that feat. And even if they did, many would lack the discipline needed to stand under fire and nearly all would lack the knowledge needed to survive there.

---

Just my 2sense
When I refer to my 2sense, I’m actually talking about my weird fifth sense. Not sixth. By some tragic accident, I was born without taste buds.

• sig courtesy of Surgoshan

[justwannano]

Golly 2scents
I’m glad we aren’t posting opinions here

[justwannano]

My humble apologies in misspelling your name.
Sometimes you have to wish for editing rights.

[2sense]

No problem with the name.
Mistakes happen; I don’t even bother to edit them on the boards where that is possible.

I am going to try to explain my thinking on the netiquette of GD without any sarcasm. This is only my judgement on the subject, which has been disputed in the past.
Posting opinions is OK. Even just posting opinions is OK, as long as you are prepared to defend them. What is not OK with me is posting contrary opinions without addressing the argument(s) the opinion is contrasting. Again, this is only the opinion I formed from hanging here since I joined. The mods decide what is appropriate and what is not. I’m not a mod and I have no desire to monitor your posting habits. If I feel you are “witnessing” for the other side of the argument then I may choose to attack those posts on that basis. Or I may just ignore them. I encourage you to feel free to post in the manner that you see fit, though keeping an eye out for the notoriously bloodthirsty Gaudere would be a good idea.

I hope you understand my position better.

---

Just my 2sense

[Hilander10]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Brian Bunnyhurt *
“There is more semantics to this argument than meets the eye, and it is not merely Dr. Zieux’s argument about ownership. The key phrase and intention of “bearing arms” refers to what was known to be guns in those days, which were single-shot muzzle-loaders and did not include grendades, machine guns, semi-autos or even revolvers. It is too convenient to think that the founding fathers would have had modern weaponry in mind,”

Ben Franklin was one of the first to dream up the idea of paratroopers. He said that a wealth and intelligent king would find a way to rain troops on his enimies from the clouds. So as for them not being forward thinking enough to concider revolvers or grenades, (grenadiers were just starting to hit the battlefields back then) when multi-shot weapons were available (expensive albeit) just isn’t believable.

“with another set of tyrannical dangers, that being of gang violence in neighborhoods. The founding fathers were not known as dogmatic extremists, but practical people who usually knew a limit to an argument when they saw one. Remember, we are using their word for arms, they were not using our word.”

English (American more correctly as we nolonger speak the “Queens English”) is a living language but last i looked in the dictionary the definition for ARMS had changed very little. Arms to our founding fathers meant much the same as it does now, and while I will agree that most have no use for a cannon. Handguns, rifles and their ilk were clearly intended by them to remain in common public circulation. As for them not being “dogmatic extremists” surely you jest. Have we forgotten all of those wonderfull quotes given us in highschool like “Give me liberity or give me death!” revolutionaries are ALLWAYS extremists. It is the nature of the beast so to speak. The only difference between a revolutionarie extremists and a rebel extremists is whether or not you win the war. History is ALLWAYS written by the victors.

[Brian_Bunnyhurt]

Free speech is the right of expression expanded with telecommunications. Right to bear arms is the right to self-protection from invasion, tyranny and crimes. Is it expanded with machine-guns? Good question, but if we assume that machine-guns are infinitely more dangerous to bystanders, the argument of protection is then bent towards protecting ourselves from stray bullets. Do citizens have a right to limit the amount of weaponry? Even one exception places the absolute right within boundries. Now it is society’s job to argue where the boundries fit. Why not just limit the guns cops can have to avoid the logic of imbalance? Personally, I don’t want the police to own anything I can’t own. That’s not a function of freedom, it’s a function of justice and equality. Today, there is a some criticism leveled at guns that they are passively used by elites as a supply-side way to arm the poorest citizens to either help kill them off or avoid paying for their police protection. If any criticism holds weight, it would horrify the founders.

Also, I do not buy into the argument that we need to strictly follow what the founding fathers intended to do when a new threat has been posed, we are not automatically slaves to their worldview (no pun necessary). It is necessary, however, to know what they intended so that we may confidently limit or alter it, in order to prevent a mistake they knew from experience that we may have forgotten from being under their wise shelter. I have a major problem with building more prisons for gun crimes, since excessive prisons are a greater threat to freedom than lacking firepower is. That is another supply-side philosophy. Emotionalism is dangerous in this argument, since guns also fill a need for insecurity. But, I like guns for the fact that they fill a need for equality. The danger to me is actually in the populist militia movement (where I live), where militias are able to whip up racist anti-government paranoia and pro-religious sentiment at will. In the event of an isolating disaster, they are the only threat of tyranny.

[capacitor]

So Bunny, your fear is not necessarily of a tyrannical government knocking on your door, but of some unregulated self-professed militia trying to force you to recruit.

NRA and other pro-gun folks, there is a part in the second about “well-regulated militia” that many skip. How is it that gun laws don’t conform to the regulation of the militia as prescribed by the second amendment?

[SPOOFE]

NRA and other pro-gun folks, there is a part in the second about “well-regulated militia” that many skip. How is it that gun laws don’t conform to the regulation of the militia as prescribed by the second amendment?

If a law does nothing except put more hassles on gun owners, doing more harm than help, then it is a bad law. Gun Registration is an example of this (as a couple of recent threads showed).

“Well-regulated” does not mean “let’s heap a shitload of laws”.

How is it “well-regulated” to simply take guns away? That’s not “well-regulated”, that’s silly, knee-jerk paranoia.

[Mr.Zambezi]

capacitor, if you are going for a literal meaning, then a review of the 2nd wil show that the first part “a well regulated militia being necesary…” is a dependent clause.

the best way I can explain it is by analogy. Let’s say that the 2nd read “a well educated populace being necesary to assure a free state, the right of the people to own books shall not be infringed.”

This does not mean that only the educated can own books. It means instead to say “we understand the importance of books to education. Therefore we will not infringe on the peoples’ right to own them.”

If you look at the words of the framers, it becom very clear that they meant to guarantee the right to own arms. You can argue that they were fools to do so. Be my guest. But you can’t argue that they envisioned arms only in the hands of the national guard.