Saying something aloud doesn't make it true.

I keep seeing these same tropes in the gun-control debate, repeated as if they are true and relevant.  Todd Starnes repeats all three in rapid succession in his article entitled "Freedom, Tyranny and Granny's .38".  As the title suggests, Starnes believes that the only thing that stands between freedom and goverment tyranny is a gun.  I find this to be a sad commentary on what Starnes thinks of modern democracy--there are several institutions in place which are intended precisely to stand between freedom and tyranny: the voting booth, the Constitution, the system of checks and balances.  I don't feel the need to take guns of this list, but I find it strange that it would be not the first item on Starnes' list but the only item. 

As far as the first claim above--it is true that new gun legislation which criminalizes possession of an 'assault weapon' (however that is ultimately defined) or a large capacity magazine is not legislation that is specifically aimed at criminals, but neither is it specifically aimed at law-abiding gun owners.  Indeed, whether it is a good law or a bad one, it is aimed at all owners of such criminalized objects.  And as it turns out, most of the guns used in mass shooting in the last 30 years were obtained legally.

With regard to 'dismantling' the Constitution, the suggestion seems to be that any change to the Constitution equals 'dismantling'.  Nobody is suggesting that the 2nd Amendment be removed altogether.  Rather, gun-control advocates are seeking to limit the rights afforded by the amendment.  If you object to any change to the Constitution, you might want to look up the word amendment.  Incidentally (and as I've repeated several times), many of your constitutional rights are limited, even that most fundamental right: speech.

The solution to this problem won't be easy, but it will be easier without all this static noise competing for our serious attention.

Three kinds of gun owner.

This is not a scientific distinction, merely a personal observation made by following the news regarding current efforts to introduce new gun restrictions by both congress and POTUS.  Nevertheless, the division seems fairly accurate if not comprehensive.  People own guns for one or more (they are not mutually exclusive) of three reasons.  The first is recreational: this includes both hunting and target shooting.  The second is for personal safety (and by personal I include protection of the family/household).  By protection, I have in mind here protection against home invaders of whatever sort.  This distinction is important because the last reason is for protection, but of a different sort.  The third reason has to do with protection of personal liberty against tyranny.  There is an entire group that is afraid (rightly or wrongly) that giving up guns (or at least certain kinds) will leave them vulnerable to the whims of a dictator.  All three reasons can be supported by reference to the 2nd Amendment, but the third is the most historically linked to this amendment.  That is, the 2nd Amendment is a reflection of concerns following the Revolutionary War (though not only).  Some of the rhetoric (I hesitate to refer to arguments here) has sparked a very specific question in my mind.

 

I understand and support the right to defend yourself and your rights (though I tend to think your vote will be more powerful than your gun).  But this sort of presentation leads me to ask, "who is holding the gun here?"  When you express your fear that 'they' may come for your guns, do you mean POTUS himself?  Do you mean the members of congress?  If that is the case, I think we could handle that force handily without guns.  However, if you mean the police, the Army, the Navy, Seal Team 6, then you've got some explaining to do.  What you are suggesting here, is that the Army (together with its commanders) is so docile that it would agree to invade its own country, repress its own citizens if so instructed by the government.  I would not rule this out on a priori grounds; but I do find this prospect preposterous at this time.  In order to advance this conversation, I think it important for those who support the 2nd Amendment for the third reason to identify the potential enemy as they see it.  For, if it turns out there isn't one, problem solved.