freewheeling,
I've only skimmed past most of your posts, since I'm on my lunch break at work. I'll have to read them more closely when I have time. And maybe what I've written here has already been said.
But I have to get my $0.02 in.
It is refreshing to see someone with a different mentality. Not necessarily to disagree, but to get some of our brain cells the workout they need. Those of us in the gun rights movement are not immune to suffering the effects of "groupthink" and an "opinion monoculture." (Of course, maybe after reading your stuff more carefully, I'll decide that you're a jerk
. But I doubt it.)
You might want to read another thread here,
The nuclear bomb in the basement.
As for the "where to draw the line" argument, I think that
David Kopel had a good idea with the "
Goose and Gander Amendment," which was about a hypothetical amendment that would require the government to abide by gun control laws.
It answers the question in a practical matter (for purposes of this argument, "government employees" excludes the military, which is prohibited by law from operating as a domestic law enforcement agency, although there are some loopholes).
For example, if the government feels that "assualt weapons," "high-capacity magazines," and "Saturday Night Specials" have no legitimate purpose, then they can ban them, as long as government employees (which includes the police, tax collectors, and other agencies) are also prohibited from having them.
Currently, this is not the case, as government employees are exempt from most gun control laws. There is no reason for this, and Kopel's "Goose and Gander Amendment" would ensure that the civilian population is at least as well armed as the police.
And from a practical standpoint, it makes sense. The police are part of our community, and unlike the military, work to protect us from the same criminal element that we must defend ourselves against.
If the police (and tax collectors and environmental regulators, etc) do not require a hand grenade, M1 Abrams tank, or nuclear weapon to "serve and protect" our communities, neither should the members of that community. If the police require (and are allowed to have) air tasers, tear gas launchers, and fully automatic M-16 rifles and Uzi submachine guns, then the members of the community should have access to the same weapons. After all, we're all dealing with the same criminal element.
It's such an obvious and practical solution to the dilemma, yet it appears that it's not too popular with many people here.
Also, as far as the "preventing tyranny" arguments of the gun rights movement, this would ensure that the police are not better armed than the population they are supposed to "serve and protect." Therefore, they could not effectivley tyranize it (although the military could, but that's another matter).
While I often hear a lot of talk that views the government/state as the enemy, it rarely seems to occur to the gun crowd that we may actually have to
defend it from tyranny (e.g. the IslamoFacists). In the post 9/11 world, I don't think the "top down" approach to homeland security is viable for a free country, because the professionals can't be everywhere to protect us.