When is a gun not a gun?

[billh58]

I had an interesting discussion with a Gungeoneer recently about the uses of a gun. I made the statement that a gun's (any gun) designed purpose is as a lethal weapon to be used either offensively, or defensively, but it can be used for other (recreational?) purposes.

I was countered with the argument that a gun is simply a device which propels a small object (bullet) at high velocity and is mainly used for "punching holes in paper targets and plinking at tin cans," and is seldom used as a lethal weapon.

That led me to thinking about this common rationalization of the proliferation of guns in this country, and the foundation for the belief that the Second Amendment protects the use of a gun for any "legal" purpose whatsoever.

Some facts:

"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."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The core holding in D.C. v. Heller is that the Second Amendment is an individual right intimately tied to the natural right of self-defense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

A weapon, arm, or armament is any device used in order to inflict damage or harm to living beings, structures, or systems. Weapons are used to increase the efficacy and efficiency of activities such as hunting, crime, law enforcement, self-defense, and warfare. In a broader context, weapons may be construed to include anything used to gain a strategic, material or mental advantage over an adversary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon

It would seem reasonable that shooting at paper targets and "plinking" at tin cans is nothing more than becoming proficient at inflicting the greatest damage or harm possible to a potential adversary through practice and training.

All guns are lethal weapons regardless of how they are used. A gun pointed at a paper target and fired under controlled circumstances is fairly safe. That same gun pointed at a living being and fired is potentially lethal.

Conclusion: The Second Amendment does not protect the "recreational" use of arms, and a gun is always a gun, and is always a lethal weapon regardless of where it is pointed, or the intent of the gunner.

[Hoyt]

1. I agree. Where I live, you can't carry a sword or a collapsing baton, but one can tote a gun

on city streets. That is insane.

If guns were not primarily lethal weapons, there would be few shooting ranges, gun stores, gun shows, yahoos toting/accumulating them, manufacturers pandering to yahoos' baser instincts, etc. Guns as pure entertainment -- totally detached from their capability to wound, kill, intimidate, blow things up, etc. -- would be almost nil.

Folks would rather throw darts. Can you imagine a National Dart Association with Ted Nugent, John Bolton, Ollie North, Grover Norquist, Wayne LaPierre, Big Jim Porter, major dart manufacturer representatives in leadership positions and practically owning Congress?

I think someday, the Supreme Court will revisit the 2nd Amendment and find along the lines of the Dissent in Heller. Maybe something similar to Australia's 1996 tough gun laws is on the horizon.

[rdharma]

2. Guns "seldom used as leathal weapons"?

The Gungeoneer who said this isn't playing with a full deck!

[billh58]

4. It's a common Second Amendment

absolutist argument which asserts that the hundreds of millions of guns in this country are used mainly for "sports" shooting, target shooting, or are purchased by "collectors." They tout the Heller decision as an absolute affirmation of their right to "keep and bear arms" with no restrictions or accountability whatsoever.

They conveniently overlook, however, the part of the Heller decision which states:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

The SCOTUS also recognized that licensing and registration of firearms did not violate the Second Amendment:

"The Court applies as remedy that "assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home."

The Heller decision also upheld the Miller decision which limits the type of weapon to which the Second Amendment applies.

Although this was essentially the same SCOTUS which gave Dubya the 2000 election and appointed him as President, they at least had the intelligence to recognize the need for, and legitimacy of, gun control in this country with the Heller decision.

[sked14]

3. Let me take a stab at this, although not relevant to your thread,

but a gun is no longer a gun when it's melted down to slag.