Chances are good that within the next month or two the US Supreme Court will come down with a ruling on the McDonald vs Chicago case, and probably will rule that the Chicago gun ban is illegal and that the Second Amendment actually does apply to all US citizens. Since the 2nd states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, what will follow will almost certainly be decades of lawsuits, as citizens try to obtain their rights and the most despotic urban hellholes try to maintain their power. Arguements will come down to such things as “what does ‘arms’ mean, does that mean private citizens will be allowed to own nuclear bombs” and that sort of thing.
There is of course a logical and important case to be made for limitations *somewhere.* Obviously, private ownership of nukes and bioweapons is a bit undesirable. However, the Constitution simply does not make any such distinction; in the late 18th/early 19th century, the military did not have weapons that private citizens could not own, if they had enough money. Remember, this was the era of the privateer, when ship owners would outfit their commercial vessels with cannons and go unload some black-powder-and-chain-shot-whoopass on the enemies of the nation.
So, there are two approaches to take:
1) Amend the Constitution further to make *explicit* just what is and is not allowed. This is the “best” option, and one that just ain’t gonna happen.
2) Pass a simple rule. Let’s call it the “Lowther Rule,” since I dreamed the damned thing up some years back. The rule is this: “The citizens of the United States shall be allowed to keep and bear any class of weapon, without regulatory burden or infringement, that is or has been used or posessed by any government internal policing system in the United States.”
The result? If the US does not want the citizens to have the class of weapon known as “Atomic Friggen’ Bomb,” then no police force, from Podunk Junction PD to the FBI to the IRS to who-the-hell-ever can be allowed to have A-Bombs. Same obviously goes for anthrax weapons, flame throwers or Sarin bombs.
I would imagine most people, including government drones, would see that as being a good thing. However, where it’ll get sticky is when someone marches to the gun store and demands to buy an actual assault rifle (a *real* assault rifle, select fire and everything), and shows a photo of some SWAT guy with an M-16. But you know what? Tough. If you are going to arm the cops – any cops – with assault rifles, there’s no logical or ethical arguement that you can make to ban them from private ownership. The last century showd quite clearly that agents of governments are far more deadly to innocent civilians than are armed civilians.
This makes gun control regualations real easy. Don’t want the citizens to wield rocket launchers? Then don’t arm the FBI with ’em. Don’t want folks to have access to full-auto machine pistols? Then better make sure the Presidents Secret Service detachment doesn’t have ’em. Microwave “pain rays?” Tear gas grenades? Sonic LRADs? Fighter jets? Attack helicopters? Armored cars? Tanks? Tasers? Phasers?
A further possible complication is the use of the National Guard for internal policing, such as was done after Huricane Katrina. My solution for this is a compromise: whatever class of weapons the National Guard wields or uses while beng deployed in an American state becomes legal *in* *that* *state.* I’m looking at you, Mr. Main Battle Tank With Fully Loaded Cannon. This would tend to cause the National Guard to back off on the use of certain military implements. The arguement that this would open the door for all kinds of chicanery in a time of crisis is of course foolish, as if it suddenly became legal and paperwork-free to own, say, a fully loaded Russian T-72 tank in the state of New York after the next series of Obamaconomy food riots causes the Governor to bust open with the National Guard, it’s not like Amazon.com will suddenly have a warehouse of the things ready for next-day delivery.
There. I’ve just solved one of the more vexing political questions of the day.
