The Second Ammendment Lobby and Police Safety

[TheCurmudgeon]

Carl,

a definition in common, American terms:

In discussions about firearms laws and politics in the U.S., assault weapon definitions usually include semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and one or more cosmetic, ergonomic, or safety features, such as a flash suppressor, pistol grip, or barrel shroud, respectively

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

The most common one supported by these arguments are AR-15s with 30 round magazines because they tend to invoke a patriotic slant, unless you are supper afraid of the government, in which case you might prefer an AK-47.


Yes, the question has to do with the potential of protestors to shot policemen (or soldiers, or any representative of the government) because they have been convinced that the normal options of political protest are no longer available to them. That voting or rallying people is not enough of a protection any more. The only way an individual can protect him or herself from perceived government tyranny is by armed rebellion and the only way tot do that is with an assault weapon.

The ultimate questions are more broad. The first round that came to mind is how far can you really go with political speech before you cross a line into screaming fire in a theater?

As I thought about it more, a second series of questions emerged. Why does this argument work? How have a free people been convinced that the freedoms they have no longer function to protect them and they must resort to defending themselves against their own government? That free speech, free association, and the vote are no longer enough.

Perhaps I see the problem differently because I am from New Hampshire where the people's right to rebellion is written into the State Constitution. In all my time there I never felt that my right to rebellion was tied to a specific weapon system.