A popular argument in favor of Second Amendment absolutism is that without it, you wouldn’t have any way to defend the other amendments.
As a card-carryling Liberal who does
not believe in outlawing handguns, no matter what Rush Limbaugh declares that I believe, I do find the above argument spurious.
While the image of armed citizens shooting from the ramparts is a popular image and sells a lot of T-Shits, Consider the fact that they would be shooting at a trained, heavily armed military, with armor and air support. the reality makes that image ludicrous.
Next, consider the circumstances under which such actions would occur.
Considering how right-wing our government has become, and how right-wing our military commanders are, 90% of the Second Amendment "radicals" would be cheering on the military because whatever reason the White House gave for sending int he troops would be in line with wishes of the "Second-Amendmenters".
For example, how many of your gun owners out there would stand, with guns drawn, if the US Army rolled a tank through Washington, DC and started firing on the headquarters of the ACLU? Or Planned Parenthood? Or the Democratic national Committee?
George W. Bush is not going to start rounding up the FoxNews team staff, but perhaps that of NPR. Can we count on you standing at those doors, shooting back at those M-16's?
The Joint Chiefs of Staff would likely be leading the charge to rid America of such Treasonous people. The declaration "we defend those who disagree with us" is limited to 4th or July speeches and nothing more. Just ask Ann Coulter: One of the greatest heros to our Conservative (military) Leadership.
For my part, Americans, who have not been convicted of some crime, or under some other judgement (mental impirment, ... we can reasonably debate which ones and how severly) should be able to own guns both because such "routine" ownership is, I believe, constitutinally protected and because "rounding them up" would not work anyway.
That is, I believe, good enough.
