Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Magazine Size and the Insurrectionist Doctrine

Daily Caller shares this video as an example of the New Tone on MSNBC strongly resembling the Old Tone, but I want to address what Lawrence O'Donnell is saying, and marry it to another aspect of the gun debate.

O'Donnell is complaining that if magazine sizes were smaller there would have been fewer people killed in the Arizona massacre.  I don't know about that.  There are a lot of ways to kill people.  He could have used a bomb.  Heck, he could have brought two or more guns and not bothered to reload.

But rather than address the limited (and more fruitful and constructive) issue of keeping the mentally ill from getting guns, O'Donnell wants to make sure everybody's gun rights are diminished.

Of course, the gun control crowd doesn't buy into the Insurrectionist Doctrine -- the idea that the people have a natural right of rebellion against any tyrannical government that might arise, and that the right to bear arms acts as a deterrent force against the abuse of power.  Hypocritically, the anti-gunners scoff at the potential effectiveness of an armed rebellion while wailing incessantly about how the guns currently available to the public are too effective.  Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.

Admittedly, this slippery slope has two directions.  It's not unreasonable to suggest that individuals shouldn't be armed with guided missiles, or bio/chemical weapons, etc., but it's just as ridiculous to suggest (as Saturday Night Live did recently) that individuals be limited to muskets and other weapons available in the late 18th Century when the Constitution was written.  Individual arms must be effective.  The crowing about magazine size is a pretext for smothering the real meaning of the Second Amendment.

No comments: