Suppose we interpret the 2nd amendment that the right to bear arms does not extend to self-defense against other regular people, but only for defense against tyranny, that is, only for the purpose of overthrowing the government.
Can we write legislation making that distinction? One could study civil wars around the world and survey what weapons get used effectively by rebels (probably in guerilla warfare), then legalize only those. (In contrast, a government wanting to suppress rebellion would illegalize only those.)
Are handguns effective? Probably not against government troops wearing body armor, but perhaps concealed for assassinations. If handguns are not effective, we could get the humorous situation in which civilians are permitted to own huge sniper rifles, automatic weapons, and tanks, but not handguns.
No comments :
Post a Comment