The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post - Going to be a panelist at a "Gun Control Forum" tomorrow night

RickB · February 11, 2013, 06:03 PM

One of my shooting buddies, a former cop and now owner/operator of a shooting school, is big on the "resisting tyranny" aspect of 2A, with no other justification required. We NEED "high capacity, high-powered, military-style assault weapons" precisely because they are the type that the government has, and so necessary for our defending the Republic.
Another shooting buddy is a liberal high school teacher. He said that the above argument holds no water with liberals, as they think of the government as a benevolent nanny, so who'd possibly want to stand against them? He takes the tack of, "The government has no compelling interest in limiting the widespread ownership of high capacity, etc., etc., because they are used so rarely in crime, that trying to further reduce their misuse would be almost impossible." Essentially, the time/money/energy could be spent on just about anything else, with better results.
I find it hard to believe that a gun control advocate could think logically enough to grasp the latter argument - not emotional, not political, but practical - but something to consider.

February 11, 2013, 06:03 PM	#3
RickB Senior Member Join Date: March 1, 2000 Location: Boise, ID Posts: 8,518	One of my shooting buddies, a former cop and now owner/operator of a shooting school, is big on the "resisting tyranny" aspect of 2A, with no other justification required. We NEED "high capacity, high-powered, military-style assault weapons" precisely because they are the type that the government has, and so necessary for our defending the Republic. Another shooting buddy is a liberal high school teacher. He said that the above argument holds no water with liberals, as they think of the government as a benevolent nanny, so who'd possibly want to stand against them? He takes the tack of, "The government has no compelling interest in limiting the widespread ownership of high capacity, etc., etc., because they are used so rarely in crime, that trying to further reduce their misuse would be almost impossible." Essentially, the time/money/energy could be spent on just about anything else, with better results. I find it hard to believe that a gun control advocate could think logically enough to grasp the latter argument - not emotional, not political, but practical - but something to consider.