Although it isn't particularly germane to the discussion, for the record I own two shotguns.
- This is about being able to resist government oppression.
As Stanley Fish explains in his column, this is perhaps the most unpatriotic, un-American sentiment that exists. Our Constitution guarantees the people the right to elect government officials through a peaceful transfer of power. Simply because your side loses the election does not give you the right to subvert the process. Sour grapes do not a rebellion make. If people who espouse this view feel that shedding blood is vindicated by universal health care access, they seriously need to be on meds. A lot of this is driven by the crypto-anarchist, Armeggedon-fixated Christianists who believe every time a Democrat is elected that it's the Antichrist, or whatever. They live in Red Dawn fantasy land. The saddest thing is they probably relish the idea, since in the real world they don't have a lot to get excited about.
Funny point: how well will your guns fare against the police and military if you are right and this is the New World Order? If Obama is the Antichrist and will order an assault on you "freedom-loving" fanatics, does it really matter if you have an AR15 or not? He'll just bomb your asses. Plus, if you're one of those crazy Christians with an Armeggedon shelter, don't you know how the story ends? You're screwed! The Four Horseman will laugh at your attempt at survival.
- Second Amendment!
If you read the plain wording of the second amendment, it says, quote:
"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."
If right-wingers get up in arms about the Supreme Court "creating" the right to privacy in order to protect women's decisions, and insist that medical decisions about your own body are not protected constitutionally, then how much more activist is it to insist that being able to order assault rifles over the internet is protected by this? Let's ignore the entire justification for the amendment, stated clearly in its first clause. Let's ignore the fact that we now have a standing army (we didn't back then) which serves this purpose, as well as police forces. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the current interpretation of this amendment is really about the people being able to have guns to protect themselves from the government, as the paranoid wingnuts assert by quoting Jefferson et al. Let us even grant that this means that the government can never outlaw gun ownership entirely. Now...does it stand to reason that there are no limits on the right to keep and bear arms? Well, it is already a fact that convicted felons lose that right by forfeiture. What about limitations of rights that aren't forfeited?
In the First Amendment, are we guaranteed free speech? Yes. Does that mean I can call a school and report that I placed a bomb there this morning with no consequences? Does this mean that pornography, protected by the 1st Am., should extend to exploitation of minors? Does this mean that I should be able to walk into a meeting and yell down the place without being escorted out by police (whether public or private property)?
No. All of our rights have limits. Our individual rights tend to end wherever the rights of the community extend. We have to sacrifice some of our own freedoms in order to preserve the good order and peace of society. There are tradeoffs between the good of the group and the good of the individual, whether or not libertarians like to admit it.
Simply put, even granting the popular right-winger interpretations of the 2nd Am. does not mean that there are no restrictions on that right. As it stands today, you are not allowed to purchase a nuclear weapon for your own use. To my knowledge, you can't go out and buy a tank from the Army. Your "right" to own those things is abrogated by the potential danger that these hold to society. And so is the question of assault weapons, extended magazines, etc. So the line already exists limiting your right to own weapons. This really is about deciding where to draw the line of reasonability. And common sense tells you that.
Read the wiki for more on the 2nd Am.
- I need assault weapons/extended magazines/hollow-point ammo/machine guns to protect myself, or for fun, or whatever
Read the last paragraph from the first point. If you are not capable of using standard rifles, shotguns, and handguns with standard ammo to protect yourself, it is unlikely that you will be able to with assault weapons/extended magazines/high-explosive-point ammo/machine guns. If you didn't notice already, most police officers walk around and keep the peace quite capably with "simple" handguns (even in LA!) They have a shotgun in their cars usually whenever they feel they need it. So far as I know, no one is proposing to outlaw handguns or shotguns.
Admittedly, in higher-threat situations they require their SWAT team or whomever to carry assault weapons. But the point is, 99.99999% of the time a cop feels safe and secure and quite capable of handling criminals using a simple handgun. And yet extreme gun nuts want us to believe that the average citizen, going about their daily lives, needs a military-style assault weapon?
- The only thing to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun
Bullshit. Ever see the Terminator? (joke) We all can use the google to read of situations where a good guy with a gun gets shot or is ineffective trying to stop a bad guy with a gun. Columbine is a perennial example. The first cop on the scene at Fort Hood is another. The real Achilles' heel with this logic is the subject of two other posts I wrote a while back.
