Gun Rights and Stuff
The constitution was written when guns had to be reloaded after each shot; a 30-120 second long procedure. Gun massacres were not possible because a single gun could not kill a significant number of people before someone decided to jump the guy while he was packing the gunpowder for his next shot.
It is a mistake to dodge the issue that is the circulation of mass-killing devices with a very literal interpretation of the constitution.
We all have the freedom of speech in America thanks to the constitution. Yet, if you tell the police that there’s a bomb in a school, and you’re lying, you should be prosecuted. It has nothing to do with you speaking or lying. You should be prosecuted because you incited the unnecessary consumption of emergency responders’ time and resources which put people’s lives at risk and cost the community money.
What if the constitution guaranteed everyone the right to own and operate a boat? In the 1700’s, everyone agrees and happily navigates their wooden vessels around the local waters. Now, in 2013, does this mean that you are guaranteed the right to own and operate a modern nuclear destroyer? A nuclear destroyer is just as much a boat as a canoe, but the two are regulated differently for very obvious reasons. If such an amendment existed, room for progressive interpretation is clearly necessary.
A semi-automatic rifle is just as much a gun as a musket, yet one can kill 30 people in a few minutes while the other cannot. Please, don’t make the mistake of equivocating 1700 era muskets with modern semi or fully automatic guns. Both are guns, both are weapons, but only one is a tool for massacre. The constitution protects your right to own a gun, not a massacre device.
In addition, if you’re going to counter with the argument that you need your mass-killing guns to defend against criminals with mass-killing guns, why not first ask yourself why our society needs to have mass-killing guns in circulation in the first place. I don't mean why criminals have access to such weapons, I mean why such weapons are available for general purchase by anyone in the first place. A criminal is not going to show up at your door with a grenade launcher, because grenade launchers are not allowed in circulation. When a significant number of criminals start firing grenades through your living room window, then perhaps you can justify your need for one as well.
Also, I'm not referring to the tired argument of 'assault' weapons versus 'non-assault' weapons. I'm suggesting that it's stupid for the general population to feel entitled to anything deadlier than a musket, particularly because of the modern country we live in. I am suggesting that anything deadlier than a musket is unnecessary in our incredibly civilized modern society.
Sure, semi-auto rifles were necessary in the 1800's to protect your western traveling family from wild native Americans who wanted their land back. Sure, a personal arsenal was necessary in the 1700's when our country lacked a super-power military and was under threat of invasion by the British. If it were not the 21st century, you could have all the damn guns you want. But those threats are gone, there is no need for semi-auto weapons or even multiple-round weapons.
Ultimately, even if our civilized capitalist society were capable of spawning a dictatorship, the simple fact is that the government wouldn't invade your homes with rifles. It would fucking drone strike your city with a nuke.