The Modern Sporting Rifle! Doesn't fool the NY Times

[zukiphile]

The right to keep and bear arms was not guaranteed to us because of the potential for them to be a benign object.

It is not guaranteed because it may stay in a gun safe its entire life.

It is not a right because it is fun.

Participation in any sport, whether specifically or generally is [not] promised.

Who argues otherwise?

To deny the purpose of arms, armaments in essence denies the inherent right to own and use them.

That is a non-sequitur based on an assumption of the issue in question.

One could deny the legitimacy of the purpose to which someone puts a hunting rifle (linguistically similar to a sporting rifle) but it is still an arm and still related to the expressed right. Nothing in discussion of the legitimate purposes to which people put their arms is itself either a denial of affirmation of the right.

Once it becomes a dangerous sporting activity and implement, it is free for government to infringe upon.

Government can infringe car ownership.
Government can infringe upon smoking and drinking.

Government cannot infringe upon the keeping and bearing of arms (weapons) .

Note that you didn't need to reference an alleged purpose of an object to state the right.

 

[rickyrick]

I must misunderstand, but I keep getting the impression that people think the recreational aspect of gun ownership gives them more legitamacy.

All I'm saying is the recreational aspect does not give them any legitamacy.

The weapon aspect is what makes them a legitimate right.

 

[zukiphile]

I must misunderstand, but I keep getting the impression that people think the recreational aspect of gun ownership gives them more legitamacy.

One of the problems with this discussion is that it takes place to two separate and somewhat divergent rails.

One rail is the constitutional rationale and the sense people draw from the prefatory language that the use contemplated is security. The other rail is a push to help the culture see arms as a normal part of life.

The right isn't particular to security uses because "arms" in the "right to keep and bear arms" doesn't limit the right to a particular use. Yet, you and I would both oppose the notion of restrictions on "military style" rifles as particularly useful and effective examples of arms.

That cultural rail matters politically and should be complementary to rather than in tension with the constitutional rail. As a cultural matter, sporting uses matter because they help form a wider political base.

 

[rickyrick]

The original post is in spirit describing the term MSR as a candy coating of the AR15 rifle.

Many gun enthusiasts have complicated the issue by embracing the term assault weapon. Many AR15 owners and those owners of similar rifles have called them assault rifles as well... Not sure why.

I would also admit that almost all civilian owned AR15 rifles are used for sporting purposes

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I don't think that's true. I've read (where - duh?) that most of the ARs sold will never see a match or the hunt. They were bought (according to the survey - again - duh - as weapons).

For example, there are many stores in San Antonio that sell ARs. The gun shows are overflowing with them. However, the carbine matches each month draw about 60 people. How many hunt with them? Not that many as compared to the standard hunting guns.

 

[rickyrick]

I think that is the best assessment.

I probably should restate that the majority of these rifles that actually get used is for fun and recreation. Used is the key phrase.

Most are tucked away somewhere.

I agree most are bought as weapons and get used as fun, which can be equated to practice.

All of my firearms are weapons, not one did I buy or put together was for fun purposes.
All of them have been used for leisurely shooting.
Two that I still own have been used for hunting.

But I still insist without waiver, that recreational use of firearms is not why owning them is a protected right.

Once the core reason for this protection is gone, the right to own them will quickly follow.

I feel we must stick to the core right and forget the sporting purpose as a means to legitimize ownership.

Strip everything away, I am still a creature among many species on this planet.
Every creature on this planet has the right to protect itself by any means necessary.
Humans do not have claws, fangs or amazing speed.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I agree for the most part. I have to admit I did buy a recreational gun. It was a Browning Buckmark for plinking and steel matches. Now, I wouldn't sneeze at using it for a weapon if push came to shove.

But I agree as to the core purpose of firearms, the perception of such and why they are a protected right.

 

[zukiphile]

I don't think that's true. I've read (where - duh?) that most of the ARs sold will never see a match or the hunt. They were bought (according to the survey - again - duh - as weapons).

I wonder how many of those were receivers that found their way to the back of a closet or safe as a hedge against future panic and shortage.

But I still insist without waiver, that recreational use of firearms is not why owning them is a protected right.

Why is free speech a protected right? I could give you some reasoning pertaining to its value in political speech, the positive long term effects of the free and public flow of ideas and competition of those ideas that marginalises bad ones politically, but that reasoning wouldn't be a lynch pin for maintenance of the right itself. The 1st Am. says "speech" just as the 2d Am. says "arms". The text doesn't favor one aspect over another.

That isn't to suggest that the use you envision or the purpose of the right are illegitimate or less legitimate. It does suggest that another additional vision of use doesn't necessarily detract from yours.

If "MSR" is a candy coating, is that itself a harm? To paraphrase Mamet, everyone likes candy; that's why they call it "candy".

 

[A pause for the COZ]

Good topic.
Even though some of us think, The 2nd is a right that can never be infringed.
Since it is written that way. I can sure understand why some would think that is soo.

But as we have seen repeatedly its no less a political issue as any other and is just as susceptible to public whims as any thing else.
It just takes more work to accomplish their goals.

As they keep selling and we keep ceding areas of our population to them.
Sooner or latter they will gain critical mass.
Once that mass is attained it just a matter of setting up the votes.
They have already shown they know how to change the meaning of what the word IS, IS..

 

[rickyrick]

The 2a can go away. And yes gun rights go away on a regular basis. The goal is a disarmed populace.
Governments will and have always disarmed the people.

There are places of disarmed populations in this country, and the citizens beg to be stop and frisked without cause.

None of our freedoms are absolute.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The harm of the MSR is that is a persuasive argument for restrictions of certain types of firearms and usage. If the body politic feels that way, it will translate into legislative and judicial actions.

For example, a sporting arm can be kept at a registered gun club and just checked out for sport.

 

[zukiphile]

The harm of the MSR is that is a persuasive argument for restrictions of certain types of firearms and usage. If the body politic feels that way, it will translate into legislative and judicial actions.

For example, a sporting arm can be kept at a registered gun club and just checked out for sport.

It can be, but it can also be taken home (to keep) or carry (to bear), since it is an arm.

If the MSR term were a persuasive argument for additional restriction, why would it give the NYT a case of the vapors?

 

[Pond James Pond]

Even though some of us think, The 2nd is a right that can never be infringed.

Correct me if I'm wrong but from what I read on here and the policies/laws in place in Cal, Chicago, NY etc it seems that it can very much be infringed, regardless what the Bill says.

There are limitations all over America as far I understand starting with NFA regulations. Then there was the 90's AWB people often refer to.

I've read about people not being able to buy because they have no definable address etc

I don't know personally, but are there some States/cities where you have to apply before being able to buy a gun altogether?

Or are applications purely for carrying privileges?

 

[A pause for the COZ]

One other disadvantage we have in our fight.

Since we have allowed the other side to almost completely frame the discussion.

Neither side actually tells the truth when talking about it.

No matter what the gun grabbers say on TV is the reason they want to restrict.
The real reason is to gain more power for the Government and lessen the ability for the populace to stop them.

When we get down to it on our end. The whole point is to allow the populace a means to over throw the government when it gets out of control.

When we try to show what they want. They just can poo poo "your just a gun nut. We want safety."

If the discussion turns to the real reason's for the 2nd. They can just poo poo " your just a gun nut. and a paranoid gun nut at that."

Tough row too hoe.

Fact is though if we were actually talking about the REAL reasons we have the 2nd. There would be no question about why we need semi automatic fire arm with high capacity magazines. You simply have no chance to keep the Government in check with out the threat a well armed populace presents.
A shot gun armed populace just requires more range to negate.

 

[zukiphile]

Even though some of us think, The 2nd is a right that can never be infringed.

Correct me if I'm wrong but from what I read on here and the policies/laws in place in Cal, Chicago, NY etc it seems that it can very much be infringed, regardless what the Bill says.

There are quite a few "infringements". I believe RR was speaking about the right correctly construed and applied rather than the current state of law on the topic. He wrote in an ideal sense.

Or are applications purely for carrying privileges?

It isn't just for carry. Some places have spent lots of time and effort ignoring Heller.

The whole point is to allow the populace a means to over throw the government when it gets out of control.

Insurrectionist theory is one theory in support of the right. The Amendment language doesn't demand any specific utility of the right.

 

[A pause for the COZ]

In my mind the "Insurrectionist theory " is the main theory. Its the point.
Every thing else is a benefit.

I have the right because we have the need for it.

I have the benefit of hunting because I have the right.

We dont have rights unless there is a reason we need it.
The county does not need me to hunt.
It does need me to resist if required.

The same as the country needs free speech to survive.

 

[zukiphile]

In my mind the "Insurrectionist theory " is the main theory. Its the point.
Every thing else is a benefit.

I understand that you may view that theory as most compelling. However it isn't part of the text of the Amendment.

I have the right because we have the need for it.

I don't think that will work for you ultimately.

If you have a right because you need to exercise it, then if you don't need it, you don't have the right.

"You don't need it" is a well worn argument in favor of draconian restrictions, but it is a poor argument precisely because a man retains this right whether he needs it or not. Need invites a requirement that need be demonstrated.

On the other hand, a right that stands apart from need should not properly be subject to a test of "need".

Your idea is a right based on a very specific use. I believe a sense that a free man has a right to keep and bear arms and speak with restraint and vote for those who govern him can be described as a list of attributes of that free man, and that this is closer to the understanding of the period.

No doubt that insurrectionist theory had a place inasmuch as we had just completed an insurrection.

I find the history and understanding interesting, but finally we are left with the text which itself requires no rationale or need.

 

[A pause for the COZ]

I know, and thats how we get words smithed right out of things.
It will just kept getting turned over until no one knows what it really means.
Normal tactics.
" it used to be a fertile garden, but now its just a field of weeds."

With out define purpose it has none.

 

[zukiphile]

With out define purpose it has none.

That brings us back around to purpose.

The constitutional protection need not state a specific use of the right to state a valid protection; it can, and does, simply state that the right shall not be infringed.

What a person intends to do with that right will be determined by that person. Currently, an active insurrectionist purpose will be problematic. Defense of home, self and family seem to have a good political foothold, as does hunting and target work, though how much of these are accepted culturally may depend on where you are. People define their purpose vis a vis the right daily.

 

[A pause for the COZ]

What a person intends to do with that right will be determined by that person. Currently, an active insurrectionist purpose will be problematic. Defense of home, self and family seem to have a good political foothold, as does hunting and target work, though how much of these are accepted culturally may depend on where you are. People define their purpose vis a vis the right daily.

Of course it is problematic. Thats because we have let some one else frame the debate.
You have to eventually come back to the "Why they did it" Other wise it has no basses and can be interpreted willy nilly upon whims. Were we are today.

Even in our own family's We extend certain rights to our children pertaining to our family. If they dont know why they can do something, they wont respect the right they have and screw it up. Then loose it.

If people dont know why they have the right to keep and bear arms they certainly wont under stand it and wont respect it. Then Loose it.