Trending on Twitter over the past few days has been a growing surge of momentum to ban assault weapons. To a low information citizen, the argument sounds reasonable: You don't need them to hunt, we are not under imminent threat of attack from Canada, Mexico or Cuba.
In order for the argument to succeed, you have to disregard what the purpose of the 2nd amendment is, namely to protect US citizens from internal threats from a government grown too powerful and intrusive. The founders recognized the intoxicating nature of political power and understood that words on paper would not be enough of a barrier to protect against abuses.
They built a government with fire walls between the executive, legislative and judicial powers. But by allowing citizens to arm themselves, the threat of citizen armies converging on the seats of power was a 3rd, more powerful, check on government excess. At the time, citizens could own anything - muskets, canon, etc. Our government, while allowing police, National Guard and the military to have and use assault weapons and heavy armaments, bans most of that in the hands of citizens. A citizen revolt against the government today would certainly fail because the 2nd has effectively already been neutered.
What those in the seats of power have learned is that they can mask their power grabs in frames of compassion and caring for citizens. Saying they only want a safer country, banning assault weapons is proposed as a completely sound and reasonable move. But opponents are making the case that the issues of safety are not solved by banning the weapon, but rather a two fold approach of arming more citizens and working more aggressively to understand what is happening with people suffering form mental illness. So both sides can make their case. Arguably, the way to solve it would be through a constitutional amendment changing or abolishing the 2nd amendment.
That is certainly not something I could support, because I like that those in Washington feel a slight threat from the citizen armies. The Vice President today, however, has suggested that the President could effectively ban the semi-automatic rifles with an executive order. That would be a breathtaking power grab and an unfortunate display of his lack of leadership skills. This is a matter that needs to be handled legislatively, and the President certainly has the right, if not the duty, to use the bully pulpit to argue his case. Citizens, through their representatives, also have a right to be heard and if they choose to ban certain types of arms, then so be it, although I believe it needs to be through the amendment process. These types of changes need at least 2/3 support of the congress and states.
My fear, albeit, not a big one, is that if an executive order is issued, which rings of an unconstitutional power grab, it could trigger some citizens on the fringe to overreact in ways that more people could get hurt and a constitutional crisis could ensue. Were I a political weatherman, I would say this will run for a few weeks until something else will take the top spot from out attention span challenged media.
