So, I think I’m starting to get it. The main thing this gun debate comes down to is that you want to be able to fight your own government. That’s why you need to own such large guns–because they are not for hunting or target practice–they are meant for that inevitable day when the military shows up on your doorstep to stick you in a FEMA camp because you got caught reading the Drudge Report. Fine, I get it. There’s only one problem with this scenario. The military isn’t afraid of your puny assault rifle. They have missiles and drones. This invites another question–should we all be allowed to own missiles in case we have to defend ourselves from the coming dictatorship? If not, why not? Why are our missile rights being restricted?
This question can be translated to the international scene, as well. After all, the conservative argument is that the more weapons everyone has, the more peaceful our world will be. So why the uproar over Iran and North Korea developing their nuclear programs? Let everyone have their bombs, the bigger the better. Sure, we’ll live in constant fear of each other, but we’ll also treat each other more politely. Wasn’t that the theory during the Cold War–mutually assured destruction? A theory which Reagan liked, even! See, the Republicans will totally be on board with me on this.
Um, what’s that you say? You say that Iran and North Korea are ka-razy and should not be allowed to arm themselves to the teeth? Does that mean that not everyone in the world should have access to deadly weapons? So perhaps some individuals in our country should also not be allowed to have guns, because they might shoot them for crazy reasons. Unless America is somehow special and is comprised of only good and peaceful people. But I think our latest rash of shootings puts the lie to that.