One thing I'd note is that the 'slippery slope' argument does not apply to assault weapons -- and yes, by that I mean _semi-automatic_ weapons or "selective-fire" patterned after the German StG-44 assault rifle.
Like large bore artillery or armored vehicles, assault rifles are simply not logistically viable tools for the 'well-regulated militia' the founders endorsed as essential to the preservation of freedom.
They're fun to fire (much as an Abrams tank is fun to drive), but as a "tool for liberty," they are sub-optimal. To be certain mass slaughter is an important 'off-label' usage of semi-automatic weapons. But, historically these weapons were originally designed for use in specific miltary situations by well-provisioned soldiers operating under specific tactical doctrine in the context of great power war.
We may argue -- in jest -- that a strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment only protects black powder firearms, but it is very clear that the founders did not intend to protect weaponry that was itself unable to protect liberty, or that could best be used as a tool of mob rule. Further, it seems clear that they had no intention of protecting weapons that might -- through fear and terror -- infringe on citizen's right to assemble in public e.g. for a redress of grievances.
Thanks: as a military historian I've been bothered for quite some time by the specious arguments about labeling the semi-automatic AR15 an assault weapon.
More significant, though, is the magical thinking that accompanies libertarian defense of the Second Amendment. Given what we are watching --through a peephole -- in Russia, China, or Hong Kong we all would be well advised to think realistically about the terrifying power of the 21st century state -- and how citizens can counter it. But it seems to me a death-grip on the AR-15 is a placebo for such thought.
I noticed on Twitter that a lot of liberals seemed to be surprised that some conservatives are already talking about armed resistance to "feds" trying to enforce the mandatory part of the buyback. As a Texan, I'm surprised they're surprised. I've read countless letters to the editor and statements from Texas politicians, even back in the day when they weren't quite as crazy as they are now, making this threat.
In fact, I think this is the main thing conservatives mean when they talk about resisting tyranny - not an armed revolt against the world's biggest military, but rather armed resistance to "confiscation." If enforcing the law requires killing American citizens, then how many folks can the government kill before deciding that it's too many? If that sounds like I support the "right" of people to kill feds enforcing "unjust" laws, I assure you that I don't. But I am pretty sure that a lot of what passes for mainstream conservatism these days will. And for every conservative who comes out in favor of killing feds, there will ten others tsk-tsking that "to be sure, it's wrong to kill feds, but it's it's liberals' fault for riling folks up," or some other wishy-washy anti-anti gun crapola limited by only conservatives' imaginations and lack of decency.
That said, maybe part of opening the Overton window is drawing out into public view the eagerness of some conservatives to threaten or fantasize about watering the tree of liberty with law enforcement blood. Particularly if this aspect of conservative ideology is not widely known.
What part of their ideology isn't terrible? The bonkers argument that guns protect our liberty from government tyranny is essentially mainstream. Tx. Gov Abbott, Lt. Gov. Patrick, Sen. Ted Cruz have all made this argument. "Meek and mild" David French made the argument in the Atlantic. Do you think Tom Cotton, Josh Hawley or Dan Crenshaw disagree? Which is easier to imagine: Dana Loesch or some other kook on NRA TV saying "We may not like the law, but we have to obey it" or "They can take my gun when they grab it from my cold dead hand"? (It's easy to find a clip of Charlton Heston using the latter as an applause line at an NRA convention.) If you can stomach it, read Erick Erickson's Twitter feed -- he's (or was) a regular guest on cable news.
I sound like a crazy person, even to myself, but I don't think I'm wrong. If I'm right, then we're all going to get a crash course in militias and the "normal"conservatives who sympathize with them. We probably need the reckoning in order to become a normal country where politicians don't run for office bragging about the size of their arsenals and their prowess with firearms. A country where NRA conventions aren't a mandatory stop for any Repub politician. A country where people don't walk around Kroger with an AK. A country where people don't bring guns with 300 rounds of ammunition into a bar, a school, a store or a concert and slaughter people.
I'd love to live in that country but I'm afraid it won't be easy to get there from here.
And Ruby Ridge and in the stand-offs between the Bundys and the feds trying to collect grazing fees. How many people belong to militias? Hundreds or thousands? How do you disarm them? SWAT teams? How many are paper tigers and how many are willing to go down fighting? The main point of militias is to be prepared when the feds come to take their guns away as the first part of disarming the citizenry and resist. We're all familiar with the specious and false argument that the Nazis disarmed the Jews as a prelude to genocide. Republican congresspeople and Fox News guests have made the argument. It's scary as hell.
One thing I'd note is that the 'slippery slope' argument does not apply to assault weapons -- and yes, by that I mean _semi-automatic_ weapons or "selective-fire" patterned after the German StG-44 assault rifle.
Like large bore artillery or armored vehicles, assault rifles are simply not logistically viable tools for the 'well-regulated militia' the founders endorsed as essential to the preservation of freedom.
They're fun to fire (much as an Abrams tank is fun to drive), but as a "tool for liberty," they are sub-optimal. To be certain mass slaughter is an important 'off-label' usage of semi-automatic weapons. But, historically these weapons were originally designed for use in specific miltary situations by well-provisioned soldiers operating under specific tactical doctrine in the context of great power war.
We may argue -- in jest -- that a strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment only protects black powder firearms, but it is very clear that the founders did not intend to protect weaponry that was itself unable to protect liberty, or that could best be used as a tool of mob rule. Further, it seems clear that they had no intention of protecting weapons that might -- through fear and terror -- infringe on citizen's right to assemble in public e.g. for a redress of grievances.
Terrific comment, Carrington. Thank you.
Thanks: as a military historian I've been bothered for quite some time by the specious arguments about labeling the semi-automatic AR15 an assault weapon.
More significant, though, is the magical thinking that accompanies libertarian defense of the Second Amendment. Given what we are watching --through a peephole -- in Russia, China, or Hong Kong we all would be well advised to think realistically about the terrifying power of the 21st century state -- and how citizens can counter it. But it seems to me a death-grip on the AR-15 is a placebo for such thought.
I noticed on Twitter that a lot of liberals seemed to be surprised that some conservatives are already talking about armed resistance to "feds" trying to enforce the mandatory part of the buyback. As a Texan, I'm surprised they're surprised. I've read countless letters to the editor and statements from Texas politicians, even back in the day when they weren't quite as crazy as they are now, making this threat.
In fact, I think this is the main thing conservatives mean when they talk about resisting tyranny - not an armed revolt against the world's biggest military, but rather armed resistance to "confiscation." If enforcing the law requires killing American citizens, then how many folks can the government kill before deciding that it's too many? If that sounds like I support the "right" of people to kill feds enforcing "unjust" laws, I assure you that I don't. But I am pretty sure that a lot of what passes for mainstream conservatism these days will. And for every conservative who comes out in favor of killing feds, there will ten others tsk-tsking that "to be sure, it's wrong to kill feds, but it's it's liberals' fault for riling folks up," or some other wishy-washy anti-anti gun crapola limited by only conservatives' imaginations and lack of decency.
That said, maybe part of opening the Overton window is drawing out into public view the eagerness of some conservatives to threaten or fantasize about watering the tree of liberty with law enforcement blood. Particularly if this aspect of conservative ideology is not widely known.
That part of their thinking is not known at all as far as I can tell. And the reason for that is simple: it's a terrible ideology.
Yes. Including Ak47s in a Ghandhian strategy of civil disobedience seems... unwise.
What part of their ideology isn't terrible? The bonkers argument that guns protect our liberty from government tyranny is essentially mainstream. Tx. Gov Abbott, Lt. Gov. Patrick, Sen. Ted Cruz have all made this argument. "Meek and mild" David French made the argument in the Atlantic. Do you think Tom Cotton, Josh Hawley or Dan Crenshaw disagree? Which is easier to imagine: Dana Loesch or some other kook on NRA TV saying "We may not like the law, but we have to obey it" or "They can take my gun when they grab it from my cold dead hand"? (It's easy to find a clip of Charlton Heston using the latter as an applause line at an NRA convention.) If you can stomach it, read Erick Erickson's Twitter feed -- he's (or was) a regular guest on cable news.
I sound like a crazy person, even to myself, but I don't think I'm wrong. If I'm right, then we're all going to get a crash course in militias and the "normal"conservatives who sympathize with them. We probably need the reckoning in order to become a normal country where politicians don't run for office bragging about the size of their arsenals and their prowess with firearms. A country where NRA conventions aren't a mandatory stop for any Repub politician. A country where people don't walk around Kroger with an AK. A country where people don't bring guns with 300 rounds of ammunition into a bar, a school, a store or a concert and slaughter people.
I'd love to live in that country but I'm afraid it won't be easy to get there from here.
Seems I recall something unpleasant happened in Waco a while ago.
And Ruby Ridge and in the stand-offs between the Bundys and the feds trying to collect grazing fees. How many people belong to militias? Hundreds or thousands? How do you disarm them? SWAT teams? How many are paper tigers and how many are willing to go down fighting? The main point of militias is to be prepared when the feds come to take their guns away as the first part of disarming the citizenry and resist. We're all familiar with the specious and false argument that the Nazis disarmed the Jews as a prelude to genocide. Republican congresspeople and Fox News guests have made the argument. It's scary as hell.
I'm done after this, but here's an article where Beto responds to Meghan McCain's warning that mandatory buybacks will lead to violence.
www.thedailybeast.com/beto-orourke-to-meghan-mccain-youre-almost-giving-people-permission-to-be-violent
Thanks for this Geoff.