I know a few anti-gun zealots who would like the populace to be completely unarmed. I cannot help but completely disagree with them. I am not a gun control advocate and like most Americans I think law abiding people should be free to have guns, knives, swords ect. for the purposes of self-defense, hunting, and peaceful recreation.
At the same time so many of my fellow American’s are happy to point the second amendment of the constitution and declare it to be absolute, at the mere suggestion that we restrict peoples ability to buy assault weapons or high capacity ammunition magazine. In fact, I suspect some of these types would actually favor the government subsidizing guns for everyone. I tend to be put off by both sides in the gun debate, as more often than not absolutist gun nuts and gun abolitionist nuts both seem to be driven more by ideological rigidity, than a willingness to examine the issue.
I recognize that in practice the second amendment is not considered absolute by the majority of people on either side. Most gun rights advocates will not argue that the second amendment does not grant ordinary Americans the right to own land to air missiles, weaponized anthrax, rocket propelled grenades, apache helicopters or nuclear bombs. For better or worse, most actually see it as a good thing that the government maintains a monopoly on these arms, and these people are not often accused of being inconsistent. There seems to be some sort of unspoken agreement that the line between what weapons we do or don’t have the right to own needs to be drawn somewhere. The question is, how do we determine where?
Perhaps it is the case that things like assault rifles are close to the line that is to be drawn. Or perhaps there is no line, and we really should be allow ordinary people to run around with tanks and cruise missiles. One friend of mine suggested that we will inevitably draw the line where the supreme court justice with the best bullshiting skills says we should. So I’ll ask our readers: how far does the right to bear arms extend?
Also, since I have quite many people I would like to think that many of my readers have at least some voluntarist or libertarian leanings, I would imagine that many of you do not recognize the right of any state to crackdown on even the most dangerous weapons stock piles. I have to ask how does a free society defend itself from people stock piling weapons of mass destruction to hold the rest of society hostage, if these people are presumably free to do so?