Answer key questions in gun control debate
As a longtime supporter of recreational shooting, I have closely followed the ongoing debate about the government’s authority to restrict an individual citizen’s right to bear arms. There are two questions I have not heard adequately addressed in this debate:
1) If the government has no legitimate authority to regulate arms under the Second Amendment, then why are we not permitted to enjoy the recreational use of machine guns, bazookas, shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles and similar weapons?
2) If, as proposed by some, the Second Amendment was designed in part to ensure that we each retain the right to violently oppose the federal government whenever we determine that it has become “oppressive,” then why does current law (and Article II of the Constitution ) prohibit such treasonable acts?
If the National Rifle Association and its supporters could provide answers to these questions, it would help us better understand their arguments that the government has neither the right nor a valid interest in regulating guns or ammunition.