is gun ownership a right or a privilege?

Zwaldd: you keep refering to the NRA’s positional policies incorrectly.

As a Life Member, and a regular attendee of regional policy meetings and an event organizer, let me clarify:

No more new laws until existing laws are routinely and rigorously enforced, and their efficacy measured.

The NRA does not advocate unrestricted possession of military grade heavy weaponry (rocket/grenade/missile launchers, flamethrowers, mortars and artillery, etc.)

It Never Has.

The NRA does not advocate unrestricted ownership of firearms to any and all; the standard BATF Form 4473 (the “Yellow Sheet”) list a few of the classes of individuals that society has deemed unacceptable to own firearms, and the NRA really doesn’t have any qualms with it.

What the NRA gets on about is something that I have explained, over-and-over again (I really should just copy it and C&P it into these discussions), and will do so once more:

It isn’t the reasonable moderates that we’re afraid of; reasonable, moderate people will sit down and talk like rational people, listen to what we say with respect and consideration, and we will also do likewise to them. Together, we will come up with reasonable, moderate, common-sense solutions to the problems of violence inour society without restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens (assuming you view the 2Ad. as an individual right, of course).

But right behind these reasonable moderates are some slightly less-than-reasonable moderates who are waiting with their list of further demands and restrictions;

And, just outside the door, is another group, the unreasonable extremists, who also have their lists of demands and restrictions;

And right down the hall is yet another group, the lunatic fringe, who demand a total ban on all guns NOW!, with door-to-door John Doe Warrant searches and seizures.

Each compromise, each new law, cracks the door open yet further for the increasingly fringe elements to demand that us murdering, callous, red-neck hick gun-owners surrender our guns now, in the name of public safety.

Semantic gerrymandering (I know, a “mixed metaphor”) with the Constitution, slanted research (thank you so much for the ammo, Mr. Bellesiles!), and attempts to engender a culture hostile not only to firearms, but to owners as well has led to the polarized state of affairs, vis-a-vis firearms and their owners.

2Sense: the “populace as partisans” has been hashed over several times, with comparisons to Vietnam and Afghanistan being tossed about.

Apples and Oranges.

First of all, the Armed Populace is to give an ambitious tyrant a “moment of pause”.

And yes, the U.S. Armed Forces are incredibly formidable, with firepower unrivaled anywhere else on the planet at their fingertips.

Should a wanna-be-tyrant go ahead and make his/her play for power, and if a significant portion of the military goes along with it (a prospect that I personally deem highly unlikely), it would still be game/set/match to the people in no time flat.

The reason is thus, and I’ll offer a contrast in comparison:

The military/industrial complex is run by the very people the potential tyrants wish to subjugate. Strikes, civil unrest, mass rioting, sabotage (the term comes from the French, when workers threw their wooden clogs, called sabot, into the machines they were meant to operate) would quickly shut down the American economy, thus depriving the military of the hi-tech “stuff” it needs to run/operate.

Unlike the Vietnamese and the Afghans, the American people can strike at the strategic military/industrial complex fueling their enemy’s war machine, in our tyrannical take-over scenario.

My “wild card” in this scenario would be: “How Many Americans Would Just Line Up And Be Counted In The New Regime, And How Many Would Resist, And By What Demographic?”

To get back to the OP:

Zwaldd: In our society, in any given society, covenants are established such that people may live in harmony. The more complex a society, the more covenants their are. When time and means allow, these covenants are written down, codified, and become custom and/or law.

As society grows even more complex, institutions are, well, instituted to enforce these laws. We call such institutions Governments. These governments not only enforce these laws, but also go on to codify the punishments for violating these laws, and the means of enacting such punishments, among other things.

Governments rule by various means; some good, some bad (being totally subjective, of course :rolleyes: ); our particular form is Representative Democracy by the consent of the governed.

When an individual has trespassed against another individual, the government (and thusly, eventually, the people), or an entity legally charted by the government (and thus the people), such as a business, they have broken the covenanant that binds them to that society; they have violated the tribe’s taboo; they have pissed off the heap-mighty God(s)-of-a-million-horrible-deaths.

And the God(s) must be appeased.

Okay, kidding aside, they have broken the covenants of the orderly society; whether voluntarily or not, knowingly or not, they have done so. Even arguments that they could only turn to crime to physically survive is not accepted.

And one the many forms of punishment a society can dole out is the withholding/revocation of some of the benefits, rights and priveleges of that society’s efforts.

Thus has it been decided in these United States: if you commit a crime of sufficient gravity, certain rights and priveleges of citizenship will be denied to you for your trespass against society.

The ability to effect policy through voting; the ability to serve in the nation’s military (although this has become a hollow threat); the ability to hold public office, or be appointed to a position within the government; and the ability to cause further mischief by legally owning firearms.

All of these (and probably some more that I’m forgetting) are revoked/suspended, even after the term of incarceration has been served.

I suppose it beats being stoned to death, crucified, burned alive, buried alive, vivisected, or stripped naked and cast out of the tribe during the middle of winter, yes?

i didn’t imply that they did. here’s the issue i’ve been arguing: my understanding is that, according to the nra and/or gun control opponents in general, the militia mentioned in the second amendment is one made up of ordinary citizens to protect our freedom against a potentially corrupt government. if this is the case, then without unrestricted posession of heavy weaponry, civilians cannot (and have not, like in my branch davidians example) defend themselves against our military forces. if they cannot do this, then the second amendment, as it is written, is obsolete. we either need to reword it so it makes sense in modern times, or quit using it to defend individuals right to bear arms. i’m a gun owner. i own guns for two reasons: hunting, and target shooting. i see absolutely no need in trying to pretend that the reason i own guns has anything to do with the second amendment, implying that i’m part of some potential national militia. you think i’m going to square off against the atf with my 12 guage and .22? forget it.

well that’s just great. i recently got soundly lectured in a different thread that our government is a “constitutional republic”. no wonder i’m so confused.

here’s my argument against this from way back in this thread. my understanding, correct me if i’m wrong, is that the nra supports the notion that the bill of rights is separate from the rest of the constitution and beyond government interpretation, amendment, or alteration. however, of all the rights in the bill of rights, the 2nd is the only one denied post-sentence felons, when, in my opinion, it would be just as valid to strip them of their 5th amendment rights. also, if the intent is to prevent further mischief, why aren’t felons banned from owning any dangerous weapon? it has been argued by many gun control opponents that guns are not the cause of crime and that if you take away guns, there’s nothing to stop criminals from using knives, bricks, bats, etc. however ex-cons are allowed to own these things, and they’re not even protected by the bill of rights. furthermore, i gave the example of the skier who killed someone at vail by running into him while skiing. the skier was convicted of criminal negligence, a felony. the guy has shown no propensity for irresponsibility with guns, only skis. yet when he gets out of jail, he’ll no longer be able to own a gun, and my guess is he’ll be able to own skis. i really don’t see how the nra could support such arbitrary gun legislation. if they don’t, great. you’re an nra member so obviously you know more about their views than i do. i’ve gotten most of my info from gun control opponents in sdmb threads and a couple of pages at the nra website.

Zwaldd: in reference to your continued militia/armaments argument, I’ll just quote one of my old Battalion Commanders, a Vietnam veteran:

A lone gunman, even with heavy military ordinance, will die quickly against the entire armed forces.

But, just for the sake of argument, say 1 Million PO’d gun owners took up arms and waged a guerilla war? Sniping at police and federal officers? Blowing up federal functionaries? Cutting telephone lines?

With a limited strategic objective of just getting the federal gov’t to “back down”, do you not think that 1 million gun owners could do so?

Consider the U.S. Army alone. It currently has about 500,000 people. With the force ratio being 9:1 (9 Non-combatant/support to 1 combatant), you have only less than 50,000 combat troops to police an entire nation.

And partisans almost always have the tactical advantage of initiative and surprise, having the entire population to hide among.

So yes, Zwaldd you all by your lonesome, with your 12 Ga. and .22, are completely ineffective as a militia.

But sit up, look around, and count the estimated 65-70 million other gun owners in America…

I said:

And you replied:

A quick trip to M-W shows the following:

[quote]
republic (noun)

[French republique, from Middle French republique, from Latin respublica, from res thing, wealth + publica, feminine of publicus public – more at REAL, PUBLIC]

First appeared 1604

1 a (1) :**a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usu. a president

 (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government

b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law

 (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government**

c : a usu. specified republican government of a political unit <the French Fourth Republic>

2 : a body of persons freely engaged in a specified activity <the ~ of letters>

3 : a constituent political and territorial unit of the former nations of Czechoslovakia, the U.S.S.R., or Yugoslavia

[quote]
(Bolding mine, for emphasis)

And:

(Again, bolding mine, for emphasis)

Zwaldd, I’m a simple-minded SOB, and firmly believe in the KISS principle. So, to my unschooled eyes, either definition looks appropriate. I’m sure there are dozens of highly educated people here on this message board who will all-too-willingly discourse at some length on all the subtle differences that are escaping me.

It seems equally plausible to me to call us a Democratic Republic. My saying that we are a “Representative Democracy” was to say that we elect, through a democratic voting process, people to represent us at the various levels of government, and empower them to vote on our behalf on matters of policy and legislature.

Only partially correct; I could just as easily say that the ACLU has much the same views, if only a different emphasis, and I would be equally incorrect.

The Bill of Rights are Amendments to the Constitution, seperate, yet whole as one continuous principle.

The NRA, the ACLU, and other civil liberties organizations as well, are opposed to the “interpretation, amending, or altering” of the Bill of Rights in such a way as to render it meaningless.

The NRA and a small handfull of others champion the 2nd because the ACLU has completely abandoned this ugly step-child in favor of the “States Rights” view held by only a very small group of legal scholars, and not supported anywhere in history (Mr. Bellesile’s “work” notwithstanding).

To say that either the Constitution or Bill of Rights are inviolable is ridiculous, as the very mechanism for amending it are contained within its own wording. Neither I, the NRA, or any other pro-gun member of this board has, to my knowledge, expressed this view.

It is the NRA’s view (as well as mine and several others here on this MB) that the gun control crowd is trying to legislate and/or regulate the “individual right” view out of existence; that they are trying to redraw line between public order and individual freedom in such a way as to render individual freedom, concerning possession of firearms, meaningless.

You keep harping on the fact (incorrectly) that the 2nd is the only “right” taken away from felons/ex cons. It occurs to me that the 15th and 19th are also abridged as well, and also, parolees’ 1st Ad. rights are also restricted heavily,as they now have prohibitions on who they can see/associate with, where they can/can’t go, etc.

And throughout the Bill of Rights, you see several instances of "No person shall be deprived of yada-yada without due process of law.

So it seems to my pedestrian eye, once again, that the Bill of Rights seems to imply, within its very own wording, the mechanism by which certain rights may be withheld, for just cause, by due process of law.

Say, a trial, conviction, and period of incarceration for a felony, perhaps?

AS to “other implements of violence”, yes: you are correct. A person with nefarious intentions can arm themselves quite adequately from either the Hardware or Sporting Goods sections of the local Wal-Mart.

Do you then propose the creation of a legislation, of a licensing/regulatory agency, that gives the government oversight powers on kitchen implements? Baseball bats?

Correct me if I’m not understanding you correctly: everything you’ve said here in this thread seems directed at the symptoms of our social disorder [violence]. Where’s the proposed solutions to the actual malady?

Take “Assault Weapons”. There’s a flexible term for you, depending on where you live. In spite of the fact that the FBI testified before Congress that “Assault Weapons” are attributable to less than 2% of committed crimes, there’s a nation-wide push to have these weapons banned.

Why? What good will that do?

Did you know that California’s “Assault Wepaon Ban” was so sweeping that my lever-action Winchester, a design that was new around the time of the Civil War, was included as an assault weapon? And that pro-gun advocates had to go to Sacramento to fight to have such weapons disincluded from the legislation?

And that the final wording was so utterly confusing that the State’s Attorneys and Police Officers can’t even interpret the law?

A bad law, poorly written, will not deter criminals one iota from their course, and will only entrap law-abiding citizens whose only crime was being unable to interpret a law that their own appointed attorneys and law enforcement officers can’t decide the meaning of?

I say again: We don’t need new laws. We just need to enforce, rigorously, the 20,000+ laws currently on the books. Maybe even repeal a bunch of confusing ones and consolidate them all into something more coherent and less slap-dash. Find the “loop holes” and close them.

Like I said before: I’m not concerned with the person I may be bargaining/compromising with today. It’s the one who comes tomorrow, and the day after that, and so on, with their list of further demands, restrictions, bans, licensing schemes, registration schemes, confiscation schemes…

no. i honestly don’t. this country is so divided on so many different fronts, i really don’t see any way of organizing the entire gun owning population into some kind of focused, coherent, effective, grass roots militia. i also don’t see our military forces blindly following a mad commander in chief into destroying our society. the whole scenario is one big backwoods paranoid fantasy. that’s how i see it.

which is why i think gun owners should quit leaning on the second amendment as their arguing point. there’s a better reason to allow private gun ownership: the personal enjoyment of shooting sports.

no, i’ve more than emphasized in this thread that the 2nd is the only right in the bill of rights that is taken away. not limited, as in your example of limiting the first amendment, but completely stripped.

i don’t think felons should be deprived of the right to bear arms after they’ve completed their sentence for the same reason i don’t think they should be denied the right to own knives. it’s not what potential weapon a person owns that matters, it’s what they do with it. do you disagree with this? do you think guns should be specially regulated in ways that other weapons shouldn’t?

you posted in a recent thread where this question was posed and answered. it’s the thread uncle beer opened regarding gun registration. i feel that reducing the proliferation of untraceable guns will reduce gun violence. i outlined a registration program that i felt would have that effect. if you want to debate my assertion that reducing the amount of untraceable guns will reduce gun violence or that a national registration program will have this effect, i suggest reading the arguments in the previous thread and either continuing that debate or opening a new thread. as stated before, this thread is not about reducing gun violence. it’s about the obsolesence of the second amendment and the contradictory nature of the nra’s arguments.

You don’t NEED a militia to protect yourself from other citizens (I assume you mean “citizens that decide to perform criminal acts”). You need a militia (that is, a large, armed populace) to protect against a subjugation from a tyrannical Gov’t (as my dear colleague ExTank expounded above).

::sigh:: In terms of superficial appearances, yes. In terms of operation, hell no.

Shotguns aren’t so much “short-ranged” as they are “more and more ineffective against large targets the farther from the target they get”. If you disagree, try shooting at a target with a shotgun and see how many times you hit the bullseye. Conversely, try shooting clay pigeons with a rifle.

So would I. Well, in general. But you’re only thinking of one side of the issue… you shoot a S-O shotgun at someone, oh, ten or fifteen feet away. Several of the pellets strike him in the shoulder (I’m ignoring the issue of slugs for the moment). All the other pellets continue on, tearing through stucco and shattering windows. With so many projectiles flying around, the potential collateral damage increases… including the possibility of wounding an innocent bystander.

With a handgun, it’s one bullet, going in a straight line, making the odds of accidently hitting someone other than your target much, much smaller. Especially with lower-powered handguns.

There are (in general) three types of firearms (from a private citizen point of view). They are:

  1. Handguns
  2. Rifles
  3. Shotguns.

The whole gist of your argument seems to be based on superficial features… since a shotgun LOOKS like a rifle, they must perform the same operations. Nothing could be further from the truth. Again, I say to you, try shooting clay pigeons with a rifle, and try hitting the bullseye on a target with a shotgun.

You DO understand that the Branch Davidian’s were vastly outnumbered, don’t you? That alone destroys any comparison between David Koresh’s little group and a nationwide militia consising of 65 million.

There’s only one way to know for sure if a military consisting of a few thousand men and some spiffy toys can subjugate a populace of millions of armed people, and that’s to actually do it. Until then, however, I think that the notion of “one soldier versus a hundred private citizens” isn’t as one-sided as you claim. In fact, it seems one-sided in the opposite direction.

I hope you won’t. Not without any dire need, and not without a couple million of your brethren-in-arms to help out.

Why do you need to organize the ENTIRE gun-owning population? A more likely scenario would be the springing-up of hundreds, or even thousands, of tiny groups across the country, consisting of friends and friends of friends. I mean, once soldiers start marching on the population, I think it’d be pretty damned obvious once it starts. And there’s no way in hell that any sort of military takeover can subjugate such a large portion of the population and not cause an economical collapse.

Neither do I. Not currently, anyway. But who’s to say what’s going to happen twenty years down the road? Or thirty? Or forty?

Am I to take your word that the US will never have a popular nutcase rally the armed forces around himself in a couple decades? 'Cuz believe me, I don’t trust you that much.

They don’t “lean on the 2nd Amendment”. They’re defending it.

Compare “personal enjoyment” to the thousands of deaths that occur each year as a result of guns, and you have a pretty pathetic argument in favor of keeping guns.

And felons have shown themselves to be less trustworthy with obeying the law than those who DON’T commit crimes, thus upping the potential that they may do something BAD with a gun.

A knife can be more than a weapon. A baseball bat can be more than a weapon. Conversely, nunchuks or swords can’t be used as much more than a weapon, which is why they’re regulated (don’t swords fall into the “under 6-inch blade” requirement? It’s a shame… I like swords).

well spoofe, if nothing else you’re getting more efficient. in your last post it took you two separate sentences to contradict yourself. this time you did it in one.

but this is why most people own guns! gun deaths don’t occur simply because someone owns guns for personal enjoyment. they occur as a result of irresponsible use and storage. or do you disagree with the ‘guns don’t kill people’ mantra? c’mon, you can admit it. you disagree with something the nra says. hell, you already pretty much said it - “thousands of deaths that occur each year as a result of guns”. if we agree on nothing else in this debate, agree that this contradicts an nra position. then we can shake hands and get outta here.

and a gun can’t be more than a weapon? in all the years i’ve owned guns, i’ve never used one as a weapon - i’ve only used them for sport. i’ve never loaded one with the intention of using it as a weapon. i personally don’t know anybody who’s used a gun as a weapon (outside of armed service), and i know a lot of gun owners. i think among private citizens the use of a gun as a weapon is the exception rather than the rule.