As much as it pains me to suggest that we should emulate Slick Willie in anything, it might be wise for defenders of the 2nd Amendment to remind themselves that the contest is ultimately and exclusively about the integrity of the Constitution.
As usual, "conservatives" have allowed the advocates of government oppression to define the issue and then fecklessly respond to that. Gun control advocates have declared that the recent series of mass shootings is the result of too many guns. Gun advocates counter that guns are necessary for self-defense, including defense against government tyranny.
Gun control proponents declare that nobody needs a 30 round magazine and an AR-15 to hunt deer. This claim is appropriately, though weakly, rejoined that the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting.
And, so the game of see-saw continues; the anti-gun forces seizing the initiative and the other side trying to counter the miss-characterizations and, in the process, arguing about technicalities like background checks at gun shows. The outcome of this process is predictable: there will be some "common sense" compromise between the two "sides" which further infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.
The problem is that, as constituted, there are not two sides to the argument. There is only one side - the side that accepts the notion that government may impose restrictions on liberty as long as they make "sense."
Everyone wants to prevent gun violence, don't they? Everyone is disturbed to see children killed at school, aren't they? We have to do something to insure that these things don't happen, don't we? Of course we do, but that's nothing to do with liberty.
The right to keep and bear arms is in the Constitution It is a Right. It needs to be defended, not justified. It is a right, not a conditional privilege Freemen do not have to be pre-approved in the exercise of rights. They don't have to register their intention to exercise their rights. They don't have to use their rights according to government regulations.
It is irrelevant how many people use guns for self-defense; it wouldn't matter if no-one did. It is a Right. Gun violence is a tragedy; it is especially troubling when it involves "innocent" people like children, but that doesn't change the facts about gun possession. It's a Right.
But doesn't the government have a responsibility to act to protect citizens against violence? The simple answer is No. Government has neither the authority or ability to protect citizens by pre-emptive violation of liberty. People can and will misuse their liberties. The role of government in such cases to to punish such violations.
Some people misuse their right to free speech by slandering others. No one would suggest that government can or should attempt to identify these people in advance and prevent them from owning a computer or having access to the internet. The law provides for penalties for such inappropriate use of liberty.
But this is exactly the premise upon which pro-gun advocates are acting; government must identify in advance people who may "misuse" their right to keep and bear arms and limit or deny them access to weapons And, because everyone is "potentially" a mass murderer, the government ought to limit the types of weapons available to everyone.
Conservatives always want to appear to be reasonable and open to compromise. This "compromise" becomes the starting point for future incursions by the foes of liberty. Liberty is never secured by compromise; it is secured and defended by force. The only argument that can prevail and insure the liberty of citizens to keep and bear arms is "it's in the Constitution."
Let the forces of liberty stake their hope securely on this declaration and let the agents of oppression openly deny it. Make the gun control folks acknowledge that they don't care what the Constitution says. Then the issues will be plain and the lines of battle clearly drawn for those who value liberty.
