The logic of revolt
used to be that the defense of Second Amendment rights was linked, at least
rhetorically, to the rights of hunters and outdoor enthusiasts, who worried
that gun laws might deny them their hunting rifles or the chance to engage in
target practice. That concern--always farfetched--has come to look rather
quaint. Gun lobbyists have lately touted gun ownership as necessary for
citizens' self-defense against criminals and lawless hordes.
Thus the defense even
of assault weapons. As Erich Pratt of Gun Owners of America says,
"Having lots of ammunition is critical, especially if the police are not around
and you need to be able to defend yourself against mobs."
Washington Post columnist E. J. Dionne points
out that in the past few years the self-defense argument has been dropped
in favor of an incendiary political argument: citizens need guns, we are told,
mainly so that they can offer armed resistance to a tyrannical federal
example, is Texas Rep. Ron Paul:
The Second Amendment is not
about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand. It is not about
protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny.
The Founders knew that unarmed citizens would never be able to overthrow a
tyrannical government as they did.
see: If citizens need guns so as to be able to mount an armed overthrow of the
U.S. government, don't they need something more than pistols and rifles? Don't
they also need rocket grenades and tanks? What about cruise missiles? They'll
probably also need aircraft carriers and tactical nuclear weapons.
will feel a lot safer then.