This
morning, the Senate Judiciary Committee will conduct an important
hearing to consider the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013, legislation
introduced by Senator Dianne Feinstein that would
take military-style firearms off the civilian market and ban
high-capacity ammunition magazines. Undoubtedly, claims will be made by
some Senators on the committee that assault weapons are merely
"scary-looking pieces of plastic" that are functionally equivalent to
your grandfather's hunting rifle.
|
|
But what are assault weapons really for?
Please click
here
to access the written testimony I submitted for the hearing which
comments on the intersection between support for assault weapons and
insurrectionist ideology. In this testimony I make two primary
assertions:
One
doesn't have to look hard to find evidence of the true purpose of
assault weapons. Right-wing academic David Kopel—who recently testified
before the committee—has
written
that since “resistance to tyranny or invasion would be a guerrilla
war…‘assault weapons’ would be useful and citizen resistance might well
prove successful." And none other than NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre
told
Senate Judiciary Members that the Second Amendment was drafted to allow
civilians to fight back against police, the military, and other
government officials.
Such radical ideology had little standing with our Founders, who made it clear in the Constitution that the role of the Militia was to "suppress Insurrections," not to foment them. But it has proven far more successful in generating profits for the gun industry through a decades-long fearmongering campaign warning Americans about the dangers of forcible gun confiscation and even enslavement by our democratic government. It's time for an honest debate about the role assault weapons play in our politics and culture. I hope my testimony can contribute to that dialogue. |
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Josh Horwitz on the Bogus Application of the 2nd Amendment: Insurrectionism
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I guess this nut never heard of the Insurrection Act or the Posse Comitatus Act.
ReplyDeleteorlin sellers
Your side loves to go on about what is effectively a small part of gun ownership and carry. The fundamental point here is that having the choice to own and carry or not is the right that a citizen is able to exercise. Subjects have their rights infringed.
ReplyDeleteBut if people like Josh Horror would stop trying to take away our guns, the tone of the whole conversation would improve.
Here's another point to consider. Every government regards revolt against its rule as treason. If our founders hadn't revolted against England, we'd be a part of the Commonwealth today, not an independent nation. Of course, given the antipathy that your side, Mikeb, feels toward guns, you probably would see us being dependent on Britain as a good thing. But the people revolting in Syria today are committing treason. Does it matter to you or to Josh Horror that their treason is against a dictator? Must all governments be obeyed, regardless of their moral character?
ReplyDeleteThis is an uncomfortable fact, for both extreme sides of the debate. For the extreme anti-gun side because honesty requires that they admit a situation can arise in which armed revolt, treasonous by definition though it is, becomes a legitimate response to tyranny. For the extreme pro-gun side, it's a problem because our circumstances are, in spite of a casual disregard for the Constitution going back several Administrations, far better than the rest of the world.
DeleteBoth ends of the spectrum miss the point. We are to be armed, not simply so we can revolt, but because if we are armed and adequately so, then that horrible necessity can be avoided. I've seen war. I've seen combat. I didn't care for it. While we must be and remain prepared we must also work far more diligently than we have to avoid this thing no sane person wants.
Exactly so, and it's good to see a voice of moderation here.
DeleteOk, I'd like an AR-15 to suppress insurrection. We good now, Josh?
ReplyDeleteI agree completely that the role of the Militia is to suppress insurrections. And the beauty of that statement is that it doesn't limit who can be responsible for the insurrection.
ReplyDeleteHistory shows us that a gang of criminals or even citizens for that matter have started insurrections. And the Militia would hopefully suppress such an insurrection today. Likewise, history shows us that members of government can start an insurrection. And the Militia would hopefully suppress that insurrection today as well.
Of course members of government that start an insurrection are well armed ... thus the Militia needs to be equally well armed if they are to have the means to suppress that insurrection.