The Second Amendment isn’t about shooting ducks. It’s about shooting people.
Once you really get your head around that, you can begin to appreciate the political architecture of the gun-control debate and the fundamental problem at the heart of it: The purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure the right of Americans to keep and bear arms designed to kill people in armed confrontations, and everything that makes firearms unsuitable for that purpose is at odds with the Second Amendment.
The usual response to that goes something like this: “Oh, sure, that may have been true, one upon a time, but we no longer have a lawless frontier, and the idea of a bunch of Bubbas getting together with their AR-15s and strapping on their tactical Underoos to take on a tyrannical U.S. government in some hypothetical dystopia is an absurd and adolescent fantasy.” If that’s your argument, then, fine: But that is not an argument for banning 50-round magazines or prohibiting semiautomatic rifles — that’s an argument for repealing the Second Amendment, at which point you have constitutional license to pass whatever gun-control legislation suits your fancy.
Give it a shot.
Of course, it would be politically difficult to repeal the Second Amendment. That is by design.
[…]
See Also:
(1) New Hampshire Governor Vetoes Three Gun-Control Bills
(2) What Congress Might Do on Gun Control
(3) Why We Must Invent a Successful Baltimore
(4) Lindsey Graham claims he needs an AR-15 to fend off looters in case of hurricane
(5) Man who walked into Walmart with ‘tactical rifle’ says he was testing 2nd amendment
