You can defend gun ownership as a priviledge, but it is not a right. Read the second amendment and try to understand the context in which it was drafted. There was no police force nor a national or state military. The amendment begins "A well regulated militia." Does that not bring to mind uniforms and drills and a military code of conduct?

Remember that woman who shot and killed a kid driving her stolen car a few weeks ago as he tried to drive away from her? What punishment would the uniform code of military justice required?

Arguing that there should be a priviledge extended to citizens who want to bear regulated arms is perfectly legitimate and reasonable, but building that argument on the second amendment doesn't make any sense. It is an untenable position.

http://www.archives.gov/national_arc...ranscript.html