I agree, stigweard, but as you see, many of those who were raised with firearms choose to see that albatross as something else...a good luck symbol? A potential meal in hard times? I don't know. But it hangs about our necks and occasionally gets in the way, no matter what it is labeled.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

I do see the points Big Mick makes about honest recreational use of guns, and to a lesser extent, about 'protection' of home & family. But I am unable to translate those values into 'needs'. Many studies have been done about whether owning guns really are a deterrent to crime or good protection for the family. Statistics can be cited for both sides. I see as many cases where things went wrong as where someone was 'saved' by having a gun.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Mick...as a good debator, you obviously see the mechanism of semantically linking clear & obvious 'facts' that are not in dispute with various points that YOU wish to defend or assert in your thesis.

No one is arguing whether the Constitution says "right", or that some of it was directly inspired by the attitude of English kings, or that some uses of firearms have been beneficial......and *I* specifically am *not* suggesting any wholesale"...taking away the weapons from folks that are not violationg the law, (and who)are not responsible for any significant amount of the problems you see."...such as yourself.

I AM saying, once again, that the **USE** of 'right' in the 2nd amendment to refer to "bearing arms" is a different sense than that of the right to 'freedom', and that it OUGHT to be understood as a 'privilege'. (Of COURSE, you would not like this interpretation to be widely adopted....I quite understand.)

Now...if I am going to make such a claim, I ought to back it with something more than a 'feeling'....right?
   Ok...when the Bill of Rights was written, everyone knew what a 'militia' was, and that in times of crisis, men might be called on to defend their state or country against something like....well, England deciding to re-take the 'colonies. If they WERE called, they would have been expected to bring with them the weapon(s) they commonly used for hunting and self-protection against various dangers. You know...better than I....what these weapons consisted of. This continued up about time of the Civil War, during which many changes in firearms were occurring.

   Fast forward a couple hundred years....if the country is threatened or needs to go to the aid of allies, the 'militia'...now known as the Armed Forces, was NOT expected to bring their own weapons. In fact, I doubt they were allowed to...for various reasons. (standardization...etc..) Also, by this time, the country, most states & even down to many small towns had codified and instituted a trained and paid set of officials and/or soldiers so that it was not necessary to issue general calls to the citizens when help was needed! In special times, a draft was put in place, and the resultant 'militia' was ISSUED arms BY the government....for very good reasons.

Now, you toss in in passing...".... Some feel it is the government that has the potential, " to be the danger. And yes, there are illegal 'militias' who argue that scenario, and cache weapons 'just in case'. I hope you don't kid yourself about their efficacy or logic! They certainly have no 'right' to do many of the things they do....even by 2nd amendment standards!

You ask .." So what is it you will accomplish in whatever it is you would like to see happen?" Obviously, I wish for SOME change in the way we design laws and the way they are enforced...specifically, in what KINDS of firearms are allowed and how permits are issued for them, in order to begin reducing that 1.2%...which I stubbornly see as many thousands of deaths and many, many thousands of injuries and crimes committed with guns.

   I also still wish, from the honest, careful gun owners like you and Kendall, some better ideas and leadership in rational overhauling of the current system. Frankly, I am weary of righteous assertions that "..violators of the laws should be punished!" and " we DO have laws against automatic weapons." as if that is ALL that is needed.

It seems to come down to - You believe that all those deaths & injuries are regrettable, but part of the price we pay for clinging to a 'right' that even legal scholars differ about, while I believe that BECAUSE the world is very different now, those death & injury statistics are way too high. Being #1 in the world..even in the "more accurate way of measuring a problem" of using percentages, is not what I aspire to!

No doubt you would phrase that last paragraph differently, my friend, but if any of this ever gets to the Supreme Court or a revised 2nd amendment, you will hear experts use language similar to mine...at far greater length.