Defending Semiautomatic Long Guns With Detachable Box Magaznes

[LogicMan]

So as most are aware, and especially in light of Orlando now, California is going all-out for the nuclear option, i.e. just flat-out banning all semiautomatic long guns that take detachable box magazines. Their argument is that such weapons are not needed by any civilian and are only tools of mass murder.

One of the problems I find in countering that argument is that we can argue about the right of resistance to tyranny (and thus how such weapons would be explicitly protected by the 2nd Amendment), but that can be a tough sell with many people, and also requires going into some detail in terms of history and all of that, distinguishing between right to resist a tyranny versus a insurrection (as many confuse the two), and so forth. Arguing about individual self-defense tends to work much better, but the problem is that the gun control proponents will just respond with something like the following:

"No one is outlawing your right to possess arms for self-defense. And you can still own long guns with detachable box magazines. But just not ones that are semiautomatic. Plenty of people use the very popular pump-action, tube-magazine shotguns that hold 5-10 rounds for home defense. You don't need an AR-15, Mini-14, AK-47, etc...with a thirty round magazine for home defense!"

The thing is that, generally speaking, this is probably true. And while we can jump up and down and stamp our feet and say, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!" "RIGHT to keep and bear arms," etc...those sound like petty, simple excuses to many of the gun control mindset or to fence-sitters who can be leaning to it.

So I was wondering what kind of arguments people here might have for explaining why such weapons are good. I know of all the arguments about how 5.56 and .223 can be less prone to over penetrate than say a 9mm round from a handgun, how weapons like the AR-15 are ideal for physically weaker people, disabled people, elderly people, etc...but the gun controllers will just counter that you can still own and use 5.56 and .223 rifles and AR-15s, they just cannot be semiautomatic. That you would use the pump-action or bolt-action ones available.

I feel all of us should know how to defend such weapons because if we get into explaining the nonsense of the term "assault weapon" to people, many right now may just be inclined to say, "Then ban ALL of those semiautomatics!" (like California is doing).

[Pond, James Pond]

So I was wondering what kind of arguments people here might have for explaining why such weapons are good. I know of all the arguments about how 5.56 and .223 can be less prone to over penetrate than say a 9mm round from a handgun, how weapons like the AR-15 are ideal for physically weaker people, disabled people, elderly people, etc...but the gun controllers will just counter that you can still own and use 5.56 and .223 rifles and AR-15s, they just cannot be semiautomatic. That you would use the pump-action or bolt-action ones available.

How many times have such weapons been used? San Bernardino, yes. But others? For me this comes down to proportional response. They expect people in a SD to behave proportionally to the threat, yet, policies makers are not taking their own advice. Instead, they're being irrational. Or just lazy.

For example, I would say that taking a person who might benefit from an AR configured rifle in a HD situation such as a person who cannot handle 12g recoil or hasn't trained with a pistol and who is using a straight pull AR against an intruder armed with a semi auto-pistol, then that AR wielding home-owner is going to be at a disadvantage.

So banning them would unfairly affect those who might genuinely need them.

We know that a well executed mag change only take a second or two and so we can say that limiting to 10rd mags would not have that much of an effect in the greater scheme of things.

So what people need to ask themselves, based on the sort of information above does this really address the problem?

I feel what you end up with is a policy that is just white-washing: only playing at tackling the underlying issues. That should anger the public. Regardless of their views on guns.

Policy-makers that try to fob off or buy public approval with lazy politics should be making the electorate angry because it means politicians are trying to pull the wool over people's eyes and taking tax money to do it.

If anyone else did that in their jobs, you'd fire them or demand compensation.

And, as always, there's always room for a good car analogy/comparison: What is the speed limit in California and how many cars sold there are capable of breaking that limit? Why do people need a car that exceeds the legal limit?

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Here is how I've been handling that argument with left-leaning lawyers. I don't know that it is effective but it is about all I have patience for these days and usually concludes the conversation nicely.

1. Are you going to pick up a rifle and go disarm all those rednecks yourself? If yes, then reply "Good luck with that" and make mental note. If "no" then step 2.

2. Are you going to give the same police you believe to be racist murderers of nonwhite people and/or fascists the money, weapons and power they need to disarm said rednecks on your behalf?

So far, the conversation always ends here with some variation of "BUT WE GOTTA DO SOMETHING!" or silence as they consider those options.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Logicman

The thing is that, generally speaking, this is probably true. And while we can jump up and down and stamp our feet and say, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!" "RIGHT to keep and bear arms," etc...those sound like petty, simple excuses to many of the gun control mindset or to fence-sitters who can be leaning to it.

Are you explaining a civil right, or the utility of a specific format?

The utility of the specific box magazine fed semi-automatic rifle is amply demonstrated by it adoption more every major service around the world that uses arms, sort of like round wheels have been adopted by all land vehicle manufacturers.

If you are explaining a civil right to someone who thinks that the text of the constitution sounds petty, then your dilemma isn't a shortage of arguments.

[K_Mac]

LogicMan, I've been thinking of posting the same question. There are many who see any discussion of limitations on the arms available to law abiding citizens a dangerous concession to those who would take all weapons. There are those who think all guns and ammo should be restricted at minimum and who would ultimately like to take all guns. Then there are the vast majority of citizens who are just frightened and angry because of all the senseless violence.

I believe that semiautomatic rifles with removable high capacity magazines in the hands of law abiding citizens make us stronger as a nation. Their ability to be fired quickly, repeatedly, accurately, and with great effect are what make them desirable and important to a free state in my opinion. These qualities also make them dangerous. I think the argument that only people are dangerous and ARs are not is disingenuous.

How do we keep them out of the hands of criminals? How do we enforce existing law? Do we broaden governmental power to investigate and enforce? Do we make acquisition more costly and difficult? We cannot avoid or dismiss these questions.

[zukiphile]

How do we keep them out of the hands of criminals?

Don't sell rifles in prison?

[45_auto]

Originally Posted by logicman

Arguing about individual self-defense tends to work much better, but the problem is that the gun control proponents will just respond with something like the following:

"No one is outlawing your right to possess arms for self-defense. And you can still own long guns with detachable box magazines. But just not ones that are semiautomatic. Plenty of people use the very popular pump-action, tube-magazine shotguns that hold 5-10 rounds for home defense. You don't need an AR-15, Mini-14, AK-47, etc...with a thirty round magazine for home defense!"

If you're arguing about self-defense you need to save your breath. The need for the citizenry's right to keep and bear arms has no relationship to self-defense. The need is to protect the citizenry from an oppressive government.

Ask them if they have ever studied history and have any idea what "democide" and "genocide" are. Then ask them if they know any former German Jewish citizens who have a government tattoo on their arm. If they don't know one personally, direct them to one and have them repeat their question.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history


German police shooting women and children from the Mizocz Ghetto, 14 October 1942

Remind them that governments have killed more of their own citizens than have been killed in all wars combined and have them explain to you why they are so eager to give some bureaucrat that control over their families' lives.

[rickyrick]

It's really a pre-crime enforcement to ban certain items. The rally cry is "free speech is a constitutional right, but you can't shout fire in a theater" .... Do you cut out tongues to prevent this? The aforementioned car analogy; I could commit all kinds of crimes with a corvette.... Do we ban them?
But with guns we assume a crime is going to be committed by the owner.

Everyone in their right mind knows banning guns won't stop crime, even the antigun politicians in most cases. So why do they really want to ban guns?

[terzmo]

"No one is outlawing your right to possess arms for self-defense. And you can still own long guns with detachable box magazines. But just not ones that are semiautomatic. Plenty of people use the very popular pump-action, tube-magazine shotguns that hold 5-10 rounds for home defense. You don't need an AR-15, Mini-14, AK-47, etc...with a thirty round magazine for home defense!"...posted above

Well,the authorities have swat teams,body armor,full auto wepons,negotiating teams,traffic teams,armored vehicles,command posts,tear gas,grief councilors and most of the time they are responding after the fact. I'm not busting the testicles of the police, just stating the facts. Their responses most of the time are to mark a crime scene and take evidence. I have a fruit of the loom T-shirt and the right to dial 911.

Why can't I have a semi auto ,at the least, because it's my RIGHT and I choose to want/have one. Why am I limited to 10 rounds in NY when the police carry more, along with the bad guys. The Govenor and prez have security teams. Bet they have more than 10 rounds. WHAT makes THEM more important than a law abiding citizens Wife and Children. Answer that question...What makes them more important than FAMILY ?

The government created this situation by the vacumm left in the Iraq war. The people now will have to defend themselves because of the "lone wolf" or multiples willing to kill innocent people. My two cents iiif you have a gun,no matter what skill level, you have a chance. And if I have a gun,I want it to be the best I can get.

People who agree with limitations on gun control live in a fairyland where the good guys always win and everyone lives. It's NOT that way. And don't use the hunting card. It's not hunting...it's about RIGHTS.

I put 26 years in the military...after, civilian security work.Previous secret security clearence..permitted to carry a concealed handgun and in NY...do not have the RIGHT (legally) to carry a handgun to pickup my children at school. The State has given me the RIGHT to watch mine and others children get slaughtered by a would be terrorist. You answer that also.

We don't need gun control; we have enough

[speedrrracer]

"No one is outlawing your right to possess arms for self-defense. And you can still own long guns with detachable box magazines. But just not ones that are semiautomatic. Plenty of people use the very popular pump-action, tube-magazine shotguns that hold 5-10 rounds for home defense. You don't need an AR-15, Mini-14, AK-47, etc...with a thirty round magazine for home defense!"

The thing is that, generally speaking, this is probably true. And while we can jump up and down and stamp our feet and say, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!" "RIGHT to keep and bear arms," etc...those sound like petty, simple excuses to many of the gun control mindset or to fence-sitters who can be leaning to it.

Both paragraphs are so patently false it's hard to know where to start. First and foremost, however, is that the entire argument is specious. I don't have to answer to anyone's concept of "need" when it comes to my civil rights. Nobody "needs" a religion. Nobody "needs" free speech, or anything except air and water and food & shelter. So the whole concept is stillborn, and so I don't even need to descend into the morass of those silly attempts at "practical arguments".

If you're truly interested in swaying fence-sitters, never descend into the weeds with the antis. As Frank says, be a good ambassador for the 2A. I think that's best done by staying on the high ground, and let the antis alienate the fence-sitters with their hysteria and anti-civil rights posture.

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by rickyrick

The aforementioned car analogy; I could commit all kinds of crimes with a corvette.... Do we ban them?

It was tried in the early 1970s and the effort actually came close to success. Google "85 mph speedometer."

We HAVE banned the new commercial sale of cars without seatbelts, airbags, headrests, door impact beams, padded dashboards, bumpers capable of withstanding low-speed collisions, safety glass, fuel systems incapable of self-diagnosis, PCV systems, etc. (This list is soon to include cars without backup cameras.) Cars are THE most heavily regulated consumer product with the possible exception of turbine-powered aircraft. Furthermore, cars are possibly THE textbook example of how technology coupled with increasing gov't regulation has saved lives, again with the possible exception of aircraft.

You have to licensed and insured to drive a car on public roads, and licenses and insurance have become notably harder for young people to obtain in recent years. Lastly, you have to pay periodic taxes (i.e. registration) to maintain the "right" to drive on public roads.

The car analogy is a pet peeve of mine. It's a better argument for gun bans and "smart guns" than it is for gun rights. Please stop using it.

[rickyrick]

I agree, I just used the car analogy because it was brought up.
My feeling is that cars are heavily regulated because they are not a constitutional right.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by carguychris

The car analogy is a pet peeve of mine. It's a better argument for gun bans and "smart guns" than it is for gun rights. Please stop using it.

We don't ban cars or electronically key them only to state registered users. We don't ban use within city limits, or arrest people for possessing them openly and in public. We spend billions on roads so anyone with any car can use them almost everywhere. We toss cars keys to kids before they are 16.

They are bigger faster and better than they were a generation ago, and regulation of the product presses for additional features, not fewer.

It's not a perfect analogy, but it isn't really an argument for a ban either.

[Lohman446]

It was tried in the early 1970s and the effort actually came close to success. Google "85 mph speedometer."

We HAVE banned the new commercial sale of cars without seatbelts, airbags, headrests, door impact beams, padded dashboards, bumpers capable of withstanding low-speed collisions, safety glass, fuel systems incapable of self-diagnosis, PCV systems, etc. (This list is soon to include cars without backup cameras.) Cars are THE most heavily regulated consumer product with the possible exception of turbine-powered aircraft. Furthermore, cars are possibly THE textbook example of how technology coupled with increasing gov't regulation has saved lives, again with the possible exception of aircraft.

You have to licensed and insured to drive a car on public roads, and licenses and insurance have become notably harder for young people to obtain in recent years. Lastly, you have to pay periodic taxes (i.e. registration) to maintain the "right" to drive on public roads.

The car analogy is a pet peeve of mine. It's a better argument for gun bans and "smart guns" than it is for gun rights. Please stop using it.

That is a lot of regulation. There are zero deaths caused by cars right? And no crimes committed with them too? Zero accidents?

Because remember the cry is "not one more life". Can we get there with regulation?

[Pond, James Pond]

If you're arguing about self-defense you need to save your breath. The need for the citizenry's right to keep and bear arms has no relationship to self-defense. The need is to protect the citizenry from an oppressive government.

Ask them if they have ever studied history and have any idea what "democide" and "genocide" are. Then ask them if they know any former German Jewish citizens who have a government tattoo on their arm. If they don't know one personally, direct them to one and have them repeat their question.

TBH, I think that would be a waste of breath.

Not that it isn't a valid point; it is but the sad truth is that we human beings, by and large, only really assess the world around us in terms of how it affects or interests, comfort, personal well-being, etc.

The sadder result of that is most would see references to the holocaust, the Soviet deportations, Mao's or Stalin's purges as what they are: history that has little to do with them, even if they are still at risk of suffering the same should the political climate change.
And if they ever do, because it has changed, you can be sure that any firearms protection in law or Constitution will have already been swept aside and all we'll be able to say is "Told you so..."

I say this with the perspective of someone who now lives in a recovering, newly re-independent State that suffered 60 yrs of Soviet occupation.

There is a single generation that has grown up in the freedom that their parents and grand-parents secured in the late 80's early 90's through courage and conviction. There were no firearms to speak of and they managed to do it without violence, but these first citizens born to the newly released Estonian republic almost don't see that past as a reality: they didn't experience it so for them it is just something they learn about in school and I suspect the same is true about the freedoms that America was founded upon: they just don't see the relevance to them...

[Pond, James Pond]

We HAVE banned the new commercial sale of cars without seatbelts, airbags, headrests, door impact beams, padded dashboards, bumpers capable of withstanding low-speed collisions, safety glass, fuel systems incapable of self-diagnosis, PCV systems, etc. (This list is soon to include cars without backup cameras.) Cars are THE most heavily regulated consumer product with the possible exception of turbine-powered aircraft. Furthermore, cars are possibly THE textbook example of how technology coupled with increasing gov't regulation has saved lives, again with the possible exception of aircraft.

You have to licensed and insured to drive a car on public roads, and licenses and insurance have become notably harder for young people to obtain in recent years. Lastly, you have to pay periodic taxes (i.e. registration) to maintain the "right" to drive on public roads.

I think that the difference is that all those regulations don't prevent someone from owning or enjoying their car. The additions improve the safety of the car without overly curtail the performance of the product in the consumer's eyes.

Firearms legislation would adversely affect the experience of firearms ownership.

Meanwhile, the additional costs are because all cars operate in a shared environment and so there is a duty of care and responsibility to your fellow citizens on the road.

Gun ownership is a non-intrusive, personal activity that won't affect anyone if all is done correctly.

[44 AMP]

If you're arguing about self-defense you need to save your breath. The need for the citizenry's right to keep and bear arms has no relationship to self-defense. The need is to protect the citizenry from an oppressive government.

If you are separating personal self defense from political self defense, you need to save your breath. You do not get one, without the other.

and sadly, while true, no one outside the gun community takes the need for defense against an oppressive government seriously, until its too late.

An "oppressive government" is NOT oppressive, if you aren't the one being oppressed. People who don't have, or want semi autos (ARs in particular) don't feel oppressed by restrictions and bans on them.

The car analogy has multiple flaws, cars are not firearms.

Oddly enough, one thing almost never mentioned when the car analogy is used, is that the license, insurance, registration (tax), seatbelts airbags and other "required" safety devices, and even training is NOT REQUIRED if you don't use the public highways. You might note the requirements common today for automobiles are generally not required for tractors and other farm equipment.

The utility of a car (and you in it) not meeting the requirements to operate on public highways is a DIFFERENT matter. Also note that no law (that I know of) BANS you from possessing such a car, off public roads.

And then there is the unspoken word, that should and must be attached to every instance of "No one is trying to take your guns away" or "No one is trying to outlaw your right..." and that word is YET.

CA is a textbook example, though there are many others. They made a law requiring registration of certain guns. "No one was trying to take them away"...

Couple years later, registered owners got a letter saying they had to be turned in (or removed from the state), under penalty of law. CONFISCATION, essentially, but they didn't openly call it that at the time.

The "nobody needs...." argument is even more foolish. IF Nobody needs it, why are the so all fired up to pass a law BANNING it?? And what right do they have to decide what you or I NEED???

Are they willing to let others decide what THEY need? Ask them, if they need more than minimum wage. After all, our wise, all knowing government sets the minimum wage, it MUST be the minimum that people need, right??

See how happy they are with that idea...

Other people abusing ANYTHING is no justification for some third party deciding what I need, or don't need. Or what books I read, or what I eat, or what religion I choose to follow, or not follow.

Most of us, as adults, dislike being treated like ignorant children. I certainly do, and the older I get, the less I like it.

You, being scared about something does NOT require me to give up my rights, or my property just to make you feel safer.

Three wolves and one sheep voting on whether or not the shepherd should have a gun IS democracy, but its not really fair to the sheep.

[Pond, James Pond]

Three wolves and one sheep voting on whether or not the shepherd should have a gun IS democracy, but its not really fair to the sheep.

I'm gonna have to remember that one!

Is it an "AMP Original"?

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by Pond, James Pond

I think that the difference is that all those regulations don't prevent someone from owning or enjoying their car. The additions improve the safety of the car without overly curtail the performance of the product in the consumer's eyes.

Firearms legislation would adversely affect the experience of firearms ownership.

Thank you for helping me expound my point before I had a chance to write it.

The crucial difference is that cars have great utility value but also happen to be inherently dangerous, noisy, dirty, and prone and using up natural resources. Regulators have sought to decrease the danger, noise, and pollution while increasing fuel economy and maintaining or enhancing the utility value. For the most part these efforts have paid off, as evidenced by the fact that fatality rate per vehicle mile has fallen by approximately a factor of 22(!) in the United States since the recording of statistics started in 1921.

Firearms are very different from cars in that their utility value is intrinsically tied to their ability to wound and kill. There is a much thinner line between making them safer and making them less useful. There is also a large segment of society who sees little direct benefit in ever using them personally. This makes the specter of regulation much thornier.

I think it's very difficult to coherently compare the two.

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Oddly enough, one thing almost never mentioned when the car analogy is used, is that the license, insurance, registration (tax), seatbelts airbags and other "required" safety devices, and even training is NOT REQUIRED if you don't use the public highways. You might note the requirements common today for automobiles are generally not required for tractors and other farm equipment.

Or bicycles. Of course, a bicycle rider generally produces no pollution or noise and endangers only his own life. He can, however, still obstruct traffic and cause a nuisance on the roads, which is why we still regulate his conduct; we just don't bother regulating his vehicle. (Despite my aversion to the Car Analogy, I've compared using BP muzzleloaders to bicycling. )

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The Heller decision made the right of self-defense of the home as crucial to its logic. I don't see how that is irrelevant.

The defense against tyranny argument can be made if you think outside of the standard US vs. the GUMMINT box.

There is clear precedent in the struggle for Black Civil Rights where the personally owned arms of African-Americans aided in their struggle and protected them against racists. The racists were private individuals, private individuals secretly sponsored by city and state officials and the officials themselves.

References:

We Will Shoot Back: Armed Resistance in the Mississippi Freedom MovementAug 22, 2014
by Akinyele Omowale Umoja

Negroes with GunsMar 1, 2013
by Robert F. Williams and Martin Luther Jr. King

This Nonviolent Stuff'll Get You Killed: How Guns Made the Civil Rights Movement PossibleJun 3, 2014
by Charles E. Cobb Jr.

The Deacons for Defense: Armed Resistance and the Civil Rights MovementFeb 27, 2006
by Lance Hill

One can also look at the Black Panthers in California and the occupation of Cornell University by armed black activists.

However, the standard gun rights folks (to be blunt) for a long time were not sympatico to this struggle.

Many of the gun laws were passed to prevent black folk from resisting racist tyranny. That was the fear in the South, that equal rights would let the 2nd Amend. apply to blacks and that might lead to slave revolts, etc.

[Pond, James Pond]

The crucial difference is that cars have great utility value but also happen to be inherently dangerous, noisy, dirty, and prone and using up natural resources.

For me the biggest difference is that almost everyone finds cars relevant and useful in his or her life. They don't feel that way about guns.

As such, despite more deaths from cars (in Europe, at least) than from legally held guns, for most people the idea of banning or emasculating the car market is unthinkable, because it would make their lives harder.

It wouldn't if guns were banned and so the proposition sits far better with people.

It is the curse of vast, globalised societies that their citizenry can rarely think beyond the confines of their own lives and interests: they let politicians do that for them and then accept the outcomes.

[LogicMan]

Here is how I've been handling that argument with left-leaning lawyers. I don't know that it is effective but it is about all I have patience for these days and usually concludes the conversation nicely.

1. Are you going to pick up a rifle and go disarm all those rednecks yourself? If yes, then reply "Good luck with that" and make mental note. If "no" then step 2.

2. Are you going to give the same police you believe to be racist murderers of nonwhite people and/or fascists the money, weapons and power they need to disarm said rednecks on your behalf?

So far, the conversation always ends here with some variation of "BUT WE GOTTA DO SOMETHING!" or silence as they consider those options.

That deals more with confiscation though, not drying up the legal supply of such weapons.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Folks always miss this in the car/doctor/gun debate.

That is the core usage of each.

Cars are for transport - deaths are a screw up and side effect
Doctors - save lives and deaths are a screw up and side effect

Guns - designed as weapons to kill. A prime core concept. Spare me sports and tools - those are side effects.

That's why folks feel differently about the deaths caused by each. It is the intentionality behind the deaths. A mechanism who intention is to harm is different from the bus or the doc.

Yes, your gun is a tool and it's a modern sporting rifle - blah, blah. The argument has no strength to folks seeing horror and is not relevant to the 2nd Amend. usage. That is as a lethal weapon.

[LogicMan]

"Smart guns" to cars is a false analogy IMO, because for one, legislators aren't hellbent on outlawing cars, or various cars no one "needs," such as sports cars. In addition, the operation of the car is generally not tied to the various safety features, nor do said safety features exponentially increase the price of the car. For example, the car can operate just fine without you putting on your seatbelt. It can operate just fine without an airbag. I believe it was tried back in the 1950s of making it where a car couldn't turn on without the seatbelt on, but too many found it complicated and complained.

For cars to be comparable to "smart guns," the following would need to be true:

1) Adding airbags and/or seatbelts increases the price of the car 3x-5x. So a $20,000 car goes to $60,000

2) The airbags and/or seatbelts make it where the car often won't start, and the brakes often fail to engage

Some of these regulations of cars actually do harm the ordinary citizen, the diesel emissions regulations are some examples, because the diesel engines in newer vehicles have so many sensors and electronics and are so complicated that a few years down the line, if something goes wrong, the mechanic can have trouble figuring out even just what is wrong. This is a problem a co-worker of mine has had with his diesel.

[LogicMan]

If you're arguing about self-defense you need to save your breath. The need for the citizenry's right to keep and bear arms has no relationship to self-defense. The need is to protect the citizenry from an oppressive government.

Ask them if they have ever studied history and have any idea what "democide" and "genocide" are. Then ask them if they know any former German Jewish citizens who have a government tattoo on their arm. If they don't know one personally, direct them to one and have them repeat their question.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history


German police shooting women and children from the Mizocz Ghetto, 14 October 1942

Remind them that governments have killed more of their own citizens than have been killed in all wars combined and have them explain to you why they are so eager to give some bureaucrat that control over their families' lives.

That argument just makes you look paranoid to anti's, because they respond that the chance of anything like that happening in the United States anytime soon is slim-to-none. Also, self-defense IS a major portion of the right to keep and bear arms. It is one of the most fundamental of all rights, and was believed in by Aristotle, Cicero, Algernon Sydney, and John Locke, the four most influential men in the writing of the Declaration of Independence according to Thomas Jefferson. The reason self-defense isn't mentioned in the Second Amendment is because it was so blatantly obvious a reason as to why people would possess arms.

It would be like saying that the First Amendment says nothing about criticism of the government in mentioning protection of the freedom of the press.