Originally Posted by benjamin
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.
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.
Hmm the right of the people. Now wouldn't these be the same people protected from unreasonable search and seizure by the 4th amendment.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
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?
During that time period the "militia" consisted of every man capable of bearing arms, in other words every male between the ages of 14 and 45. These men could and did join up to form fighting forces. Basically like a volunteer fire department. This was a volunteer army of sorts, not one that could be used offensively, but one that could defend the country from tyranny. This included foreign invasions as well as internal threats to the liberty of the people. In other words, if the government got out of control (kind like it is now), the militia could rise up and revolt.
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
The only untenable argument here is that the right to keep and bear arms is some kind of privilige. You, my friend, are a victim of the liberal brainwashing process.