Carl, if you see this question as having to do with the Second Amendment than you are missing the point entirely. It has to do with propaganda and political rhetoric. It has to do with how far you can go to argue a point in a free society before you have crossed a line into creating a self-sustaining panic.
I think it is very telling that you can't see the forest for the trees.
The examples I give, particularly the second one, make it clear that this has nothing to do with gun ownership. It has to do with how an argument has been crafted to support the ownership of a specific class of guns. This class of guns is being associated with a fear of political tyranny. That the justification for owning this class of weapon is to protect our civil liberties. Now, when the class of weapon is used in a protest against perceived tyranny, are the people who made the argument responsible? Does the potential for such a response create a justification for limiting the argument? Who, if anyone, is liable and who, if anyone, should act?
I have been watching the rhetoric on news shows as reasonable people make the argument that the people must have military style assault weapons if they are going to protect themselves from the government. I don't think this is an academic question any longer. So I pose it to the council.
Bookmarks