Most Americans are fine with the above-mentioned limitations, and most Americans also support certain restrictions on their Second Amendment rights to own and bear less sensational and theatrical arms. President Obama, like his predecessor, President Bush, supports a ban on assault weapons. Many members of the House and Senators are in favor of a ban on large capacity (extended) clips, like the one used by Jared Lee Loughner in the January 8th Arizona shootings. Many, but alas not all.
The "not all" camp includes people who regard the Second Amendment as the people's last defense against tyranny. Perhaps in earnest, or perhaps disingenuously and only to protect the interests of gun manufacturers, they say that the Second Amendment grants people unlimited rights, precisely to grant them the ability to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. And so Rachel Maddow takes their argument to its logical conclusion: If you and I should be allowed to bear arms in order to overthrow a tyrannical government, should American citizens be able to own nukes? If not, shouldn't it be in our best interest as a people to limit the power of the weapons the U.S. Armed Fores possess, so as not to be overwhelmed in case of an armed conflict against the government of the United States?
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
There is a point beyond which Second Amendment defenders become simply ridiculous in their obstinate refusal to allow any kind of restriction on the right to own arms, don't you think?
2 comments:
no chance of tyrannical government, then no need for weapons.
I would agree that if there were no possibility of a tyrannical government then there would be no last line of defense. And a 9mm pistol is worthless in that event.
Post a Comment