Quote Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon View Post

"Has the Second Amendment/Assault Weapon Lobby become a destabilizing force in the US?"

Here is the thrust of the question. Has the need to justify ownership of military assault rifled pushed the lobby into playing the "right to revolution" card.


I'll add some questions to this original one. Mine may expound on this question, if I understand it correctly.

Do US citizens truly own 'assault weapons' (what a horrible term to use in a civilian context) to defend their rights, and to defend themselves against a wayward government (rather than just home intruders)? Or is the actual ownership of those weapons in and off itself the ultimate manifestation of those rights? Can it be that the right to defend against a wayward govt has become a straw-man for the ownership of (these) guns? With other words, have the means become the end?


If the distinction between different classes of guns was never made, would the conversation still exist? I should think so. But would it be just as heated, or do these distinctions serve to concentrate and perhaps increase the heat in one direction?