“The antigun organizations, and many lower courts amenable to their views, resist Heller and McDonald, and continue to advance strategies altogether inconsistent with the High Court’s holdings,” Attorney Roger J. Katz writes at ammoland.com. “The arguments – actually rationalizations – for more and more restrictive gun measures may be distilled to the following . . .
1. No one needs a gun because the police will protect you
2. Curtailing civilian gun ownership precludes gun violence and gun accidents.
3. Civilized people don’t want guns and are repulsed by them
4. Since no one can know who, among the population, will go off “half-cocked” – presenting a danger to self or others – it is best to curtail civilian gun ownership and possession
5. The Second Amendment is obsolete; no other Country has anything like it, and the U.S. shouldn’t either.
These five arguments are a ragbag of elements gleaned from utilitarian ethics, psychology, sociology, politics, economics, and even aesthetics. But they all embrace one central tenet: governmental control of the American public.
So, what’s the flip side of these rationalizations? What are the five pillars of firearms freedom, and what’s the central tenet?