Legitimate uses for firearms

[Blackbeard]

I often hear the antis, and many pros, speak of "legitimate" uses for privately-owned firearms. Now what each side considers legitimate could vary wildly from person to person. In my opinion, there are five legitimate uses for privately-owned firearms:

1. Sports (target/action shooting for fun)
2. Hunting (put food on the table)
3. Self-defense (prevent harm to yourself or others)
4. National defense (repel invading armies)
5. Revolution (throw off oppressive government)

It seems that most anti's recognize only #1 and #2, while the rest of us recognize all 5. Can you think of any that don't fit these categories? I think in order to have a proper debate about what firearms should be allowed, there must first be agreement on what are legitimate uses.

P.S. I suppose "collecting" for enjoyment or historical significance could be another category, but it's not really a "use".

 

[Avenger29]

It seems that most anti's recognize only #1 and #2, while the rest of us recognize all 5. Can you think of any that don't fit these categories? I think in order to have a proper debate about what firearms should be allowed, there must first be agreement on what are legitimate uses.

The anti's pay only lip service to the first two. Easier to destroy the 2nd Amendment when you can deal with the FUDDs later after getting rid of the "radicals".

 

[everallm]

The answer is that if what you are doing with your firearms is not explicitly illegal it is legal. Trying to place further constraints are counter productive at best.

Collection and display are perfectly legal, legitimate and frequently enjoyed solitary AND group activities.

You have also left off firearms as a business.........

 

[JWJacobVT]

The Bill of Rights says nothing about Hunting or Sports. Only about 3,4,5.
I guess I don't understand the problem.

 

[thepenismightier]

I think we should make a distinction between "legal" uses, as everallm defines, and "legitimate" uses, as Blackbeard started the thread discussing.

#5 (Revolution) is probably patently illegal, but the point at which you're overthrowing the government is the point at which that government's laws cease to matter. Therefore it's still a "legitimate" if not a "legal" category.

Now "justified" is a whole other category, that may or may not include Revolution, depending on the circumstances.

Most (not all) antis that I personally know would agree that all 5 uses mentioned are legitimate. The usual argument is over type and quantity of guns owned (the old "Do you really need a whole arsenal?"..."Do you really need that gun to go hunting?"), and how easily they can be obtained.

As long as we're parsing, I'd agree that historical significance/collection counts as it's own use category, but say that firearms as a business is predicated on and takes in the other 6 "uses".

 

[catspa]

thepen:Most (not all) antis that I personally know would agree that all 5 uses mentioned are legitimate. The usual argument is over type and quantity of guns owned (the old "Do you really need a whole arsenal?"..."Do you really need that gun to go hunting?"), and how easily they can be obtained.

"Do you really need cold beer?"

Parker

 

[JWJacobVT]

To go to another thread, If the Tank I own (Not quite) dosen't bother folks at the range when I shoot it and I haven't crushed any cars (lately) while parking it, why can't I have it. If folks have their way we will all be driving bicycles and not cars. Oh and I don't tell Jay Leno how many cars or what type he can have either.

 

[thepenismightier]

"Do you really need cold beer?"

Funny you mention that, there was a time that question was considered valid. It went like this...

"Do you really need to consume alcohol that isn't for religious or medicinal purposes?"

Of course, we all know how well that worked.

And the antis' objections (at least as I've heard them) aren't usually so much a correlation to "Do you really need cold beer?" as they are to a range somewhere between "Do you really need High Gravity beer?" to "Do you really need straight grain alcohol?"

 

[Walkalong]

It seems that most anti's recognize only #1 and #2,

Some of them, but that won't stop them from taking all guns if they can.

 

[thepenismightier]

Seriously though...who doesn't want a tank?

Gassing it up would suck a bit.

 

[MisterMike]

I'd also agree that number 5 is a conundrum--this was clearly one of the concerns of the founding fathers in guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms, but to actually act to overthrow the government is a crime recognized in Article III of the Constitution and addressed in statutes. Perhaps it would be better described as "To prevent the institution of oppressive government."

When I hear anti-civil rights types discussing guns, I usually hear them talking about "legitimate guns for hunting and sports," which I view as an intellectually dishonest attempt to couch the protections of the Second Amendment in terms that were never contemplated by the drafters. To some measure, this strategy has been effective--I often hear this term repeated by individuals in favor of gun control in this context: "Why would you ever need a [semi-automatic/handgun/collapsible stock/insert whatever here] to hunt deer?"

I've said this before, and I'll keep beating the drum, in terms that strike an emotional chord with those of every political persuasion: The right to keep and bear arms is a civil right that is part of the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights, formalizing what has been viewed by legal scholars for centuries, if not millenia, as a fundamental human right. When individuals advocate an abridgement of rights under the Second Amendment, they are advocating a violation of civil rights.

 

[JWJacobVT]

HAHAHAHAHA
Try getting Grain alcohol here in VT.
You fill out a form to the State to justify why you need it & Etc. I just drive to NH or NY. OOPS did I say that.

 

[catspa]

thepenismightier:And the antis' objections (at least as I've heard them) aren't usually so much a correlation to "Do you really need cold beer?" as they are to a range somewhere between "Do you really need High Gravity beer?" to "Do you really need straight grain alcohol?"

A difference of degree, not of kind. I guess my point was, "Who are you to be determining my needs, or if my possessions go beyond them?"

Or, "When have I come to your house and imposed my preferences on you?"

Or, "If you can't show me how my ownership of firearms harms you, then shut up about it. Unless you want me to start going through your stuff..."

Some people are far too willing to meddle in the private affairs of others.

Parker

 

[Blackbeard]

The point of this exercise is to build a framework for debate with the antis. Their favorite argument against semi-auto rifles is that they are "designed for killing large numbers of people", implying that killing lots of people is not a legitimate use. We can argue that they aren't desgned for that, but that's not a strong argument. If we can get them to agree that #4 and #5 are legitimate uses, then it follows that tools designed to kill lots of people are legitimate to own. It's always better to get your opponent to admit his own position is illogical than to try to debate the truth of something so nebulous as a gun's purpose.

 

[thepenismightier]

True. And it's already easy to see that Privacy on all fronts is going to be the big civil battleground of the next fifty years.

 

[catspa]

MisterMike:I've said this before, and I'll keep beating the drum, in terms that strike an emotional chord with those of every political persuasion: The right to keep and bear arms is a civil right that is part of the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights, formalizing what has been viewed by legal scholars for centuries, if not millenia, as a fundamental human right.

Mike, I view the 2A right primarily as a natural right. Civil rights (as I understand them) are bestowed by governments, and can be revoked by governments as well. It would be an unfortunate mistake to think that civil rights are all I have, or that they take precedence over natural rights. My right to my life is inalienable, my right to self-defense is derived therefrom, and my RKBA is derived from that, regardless of what government chooses to bestow on me.

We might be on the same page here, just saying it differently.

Parker

 

[CoRoMo]

I think your list should be flipped upside down. That way it will more closely illustrate the original purposes of the 2nd Amendment, and they still apply today.

1. 5. Revolution
2. 4. National defense
3. 3. Self-defense
4. 2. Hunting
5. 1. Sports

Maybe throw in collecting/investing too?

 

[XCastleX]

what about tradition as a "legit use"

passed from grandfather to father to son and on...

for some families, your first gun is a right of passage.

 

[thepenismightier]

Blackbeard...As you say, National Defense and Revolution are great arguments for guns that kill a lot of people.

The arguments against are that National Defense is primarily handled by the professional military (these days), and that overthrowing the government is such an enormous deal that it should be hard to accomplish, and that having a weapons disadvantage to the state is simply proper.

My opinion, there's some logic there, but it goes against the original intentions of the framers, who, as concerned as they may have been with preserving #5, were probably even more concerned with #4, and weren't about to try and castrate the civilian militia.

 

[MisterMike]

Mike, I view the 2A right primarily as a natural right. Civil rights (as I understand them) are bestowed by governments, and can be revoked by governments as well. It would be an unfortunate mistake to think that civil rights are all I have, or that they take precedence over natural rights. My right to my life is inalienable, my right to self-defense is derived therefrom, and my RKBA is derived from that, regardless of what government chooses to bestow on me.

We might be on the same page here, just saying it differently.

Parker

Parker--

I think we are on the same page. There are some definitions of the term "civil rights" here: http://www.answers.com/topic/civil-rights .

Technically, the term "civil rights" refers to a set of rights conferred upon citizens of a state, but among those rights, at least in the United States, are certain natural, "inalienable" rights that our founders thought were important to guarantee with mention in The Constitution.

The right to keep and bear arms is, in the fairly non-technical way I think of this, a civil right since it is embodied in that part of the Constitution most of us hold most dear, The Bill of Rights. To be truthful, the reason I like using it is because I feel it places this right on the same plane as other civil rights that are now believed by people of most political persuasions to be fundamental human rights, most notably the right to be free of discrimination based on race, color or creed.

I don't feel it's inaccurate, and I feel it correctly establishes the importance of the right. But even if I'm a shade off of the strict legal definition of civil rights, I think we agree on the fundamentals.

 

[cbrgator]

MisterMike and Parker,

You guys are not really correct. There is no real distinction between a civil right and a civil liberty, other than in America we think of civil rights as demographic (race, sex ,etc.). Civil liberties are not bestowed up the citizens by the government. They are constraints on the government by definition. They are designed to protect the individual from government interference with the individual's freedom. The Bill of Rights did not bestow upon us the right to free speech, RKBA, etc. The founding fathers recognized these as pre-existing, inherent rights we all possess and the Bill of Rights does not grant those rights to us, it (well its supposed to) protects us against government infringement of our inherent rights.

This is evidenced by the construction of these amendments, the rights aren't granted but the words say they should not be restricted.
1A - free speech shall not be abridged
2A - RKBA shall not be infringed
4A - Search and Seizure shall not be violated
And so no.

It doesn't say we grant you the right to free speech, bear arms, and not be illegally searched. It states the government cannot abridge, infringe, or violate these (pre-existing) rights.

 

[ants]

Lawful is Legitimate

Webster's Dictionary:
Legitimate -adj. 1. According to law; lawful

Thus, anything not illegal is automatically legitimate.



So now you know why anti-gun people want more gun laws: By making lawful uses unlawful, it makes guns more illegitimate.

 

[jakemccoy]

Collecting is another legitimate use.

However, it would be unwise to codify legitimate uses. I'm sure there will be another legitimate use decades from now that we do not have the foresight to imagine now. The drafters of the Bill of Rights were wise enough not to codify legitimate uses for firearms. They almost did by including "A well regulated Militia".

 

[Weezy]

1. Sports (target/action shooting for fun)
2. Hunting (put food on the table)
3. Tradition (collecting, heirlooms)
4. Pest Control (everything else)

 

[BhmBill]

"use" should encompass possession AND use.

R & D is a legitimate use.

Historical, sentimental value, collecting, or just because I want one/some is a legitimate "use" of firearms.