The Second Amendment right extends outside the home. Some observers speculate that the right to keep and bear arms might mean inside one’s home only. Examination of the landmark Supreme Court case, D.C. v  Heller shows this assumption to be incorrect.

Restricting gun possession outside of the home is clear violation of the Second Amendment and intent of the protected right to keep and bear arms guaranteed in the Constitution at the time of ratification. Constitutional rights are supposed to be understood by common people – not requiring primary education, plus a 4-year college degree, a 3-year law degree and years of professional experience interpreting case-law to understand your pre-existing rights that areprotected by the Constitution. Obtuse lawyers, analysts and so-called ‘pundits’ seem to miss the forest for the trees. There’s a reason for this: they look at what a particular case actually ruled on, and the Supreme Court only ruled on a very specific question – ‘is a law that prohibits gun possession in one’s home constitutional?’. The Supreme Court ruled in D.C. v Heller that it is not constitutional. Ergo, some short-sighted commentators take that to mean that the Court has “been silent” on the question of whether gun possession outside of the home is protected under the Second Amendment.

Not so fast.

The Court provided in-depth reasoning as to why the law was invalid, defining every one of the 27 words that comprise the Second Amendment, explaining the words meaning at the time of ratification, the legal history of the right to keep and bear arm from England to Colonial America, and how it was viewed after the ratification of the U.S. Constitution through the post-Civil War era. From this thorough examination, we can clearly see the absurdity of the supposition that the Second Amendment only means you can keep a gun in your home because of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Heller. At no point in Heller did the Court say the Second Amendment only protected the right to keep and bear arms in the home. Let’s look at what the Court did say:

“Held: 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home” (Syllabus, page 1).

Notice it says “for lawful purposes”, plural, and then says “such as self-defense within the home”. This means that self-defense within the home is one of several lawful purposes, not the sole lawful purpose for which the right to keep and bear arms is protected. Further, the Court explicitly mentions several other lawful purposes in Heller.

Though the Court says the Second Amendment is not dependent upon service in a militia or military unit (p.11-12), it is also clear that militia service is a protected lawful purpose. To be clear, this does not mean the National Guard, which didn’t exist as we know it today didn’t until 1903. The Court clearly states in Heller that the militia were (and still are under Federal law) all able-bodied males (p.23). It should be obvious that militia perform its duties outside of the home.

Hunting is a specifically mentioned lawful purpose in Heller: “most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting” (p. 26). Hunting, in virtually all cases, means outside of the home. One could not take seriously the idea that hunting is only lawful inside ones home. There is no suggestion in Heller that the Court implied this, only that D.C.’s unconstitutional law violated one of the Second Amendment’s lawful purposes.

The Court notes an additional three lawful protected purposes in discussing the meaning of the phrase ‘the security of a free state’, repelling invasion, suppressing insurrection and resisting tyranny: “it is useful in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections… when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny” (p.24-25). All listed lawfully protected purposes logically must involve citizens outside their home; repelling a foreign invader could not be done solely within one’s home, nor could suppressing an insurrection, or resisting government tyranny.

An objector may reason that these purposes aren’t necessities in the way they may have been at the time ratification. This is irrelevant, as the Court states: “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad” (p.63). At the time of adoption, this is how the right was understood and all are lawful purposes regardless of whether future generations would exercise the lawful purpose later. The fact remains they are lawful purposes, require the people to be outside of their homes, and therefore demonstrate the idea that the Second Amendment’s lawfully protects guns outside of the home by necessity.

We see from Heller itself that the Court lists multiple lawful purposes in plurality, not restricting the Second Amendment to a singular lawful purpose. The Court explicitly details at least five purposes that involve or require activity outside of the home. Therefore we can easily conclude the suggestion that the Court has – or could – rule that the only lawful purpose is gun possession for self-defense within a home is absurd, defying logic and reason as well as the explicitly written letter of the ruling.

Be sure to check out part two of this series as we continue to look at why the Second Amendment protects your right to keep and bear arms outside of the home.

By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.

Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 

This article also appears on The Brenner Brief. (Original publication November 22, 2013).

The Second Amendment Right Extends Outside The Home, Pt 1

by Matt MacBradaigh | Nov 22, 2013 | 2nd Amendment Facts | 5 comments

The Second Amendment right is not limited to one’s home. Some observers speculate that the right to keep and bear arms might mean inside one’s home only. However the landmark Supreme Court case, D.C. v  Heller clearly demonstrates this assumption is incorrect and the Second Amendment extends out of the home.

Restricting gun possession outside of the home is clear violation of the Second Amendment and intent of the protected right to keep and bear arms guaranteed in the Constitution at the time of ratification. Constitutional rights are supposed to be understood by common people – not requiring primary education, plus a 4-year college degree, a 3-year law degree, and years of professional experience interpreting case-law to understand your pre-existing rights that are protected by the Constitution. Obtuse lawyers, analysts and so-called ‘pundits’ seem to miss the forest for the trees. There’s a reason for this: they look at what a particular case actually ruled on, and the Supreme Court only ruled on a very specific question – ‘is a law that prohibits gun possession in one’s home constitutional?’. The Supreme Court ruled in D.C. v Heller that it is not constitutional. Ergo, some short-sighted commentators take that to mean that the Court has “been silent” on the question of whether gun possession outside of the home is protected under the Second Amendment.

Not so fast.

The Court provided in-depth reasoning as to why the law was invalid, defining every one of the 27 words that comprise the Second Amendment, explaining the words meaning at the time of ratification, the legal history of the right to keep and bear arm from England to Colonial America, and how it was viewed after the ratification of the U.S. Constitution through the post-Civil War era. From this thorough examination, we can clearly see the absurdity of the supposition that the Second Amendment only means you can keep a gun in your home because of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Heller. At no point in Heller did the Court say the Second Amendment only protected the right to keep and bear arms in the home. Let’s look at what the Court did say:

“Held: 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home” (Syllabus, page 1).

Notice it says “for lawful purposes” – plural – and then says “such as self-defense within the home”. This means that self-defense within the home is one of several lawful purposes, not the sole lawful purpose for which the right to keep and bear arms is protected. Further, the Court explicitly mentions several other lawful purposes in Heller.

Though the Court says the Second Amendment is not dependent upon service in a militia or military unit (p.11-12), it is also clear that militia service is a protected lawful purpose. To be clear, this does not mean the National Guard, which didn’t exist as we know it today didn’t until 1903. The Court clearly states in Heller that the militia were (and still are under Federal law) all able-bodied males (p.23). It should be obvious that militia perform its duties outside of the home.

Hunting is a specifically mentioned lawful purpose in Heller: “most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting” (p. 26). Hunting, in virtually all cases, means outside of the home. One could not take seriously the idea that hunting is only lawful inside ones home. There is no suggestion in Heller that the Court implied this, only that D.C.’s unconstitutional law violated one of the Second Amendment’s lawful purposes.

The Court notes an additional three lawful protected purposes in discussing the meaning of the phrase ‘the security of a free state’, repelling invasion, suppressing insurrection and resisting tyranny: “it is useful in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections… when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny” (p.24-25). All listed lawfully protected purposes logically must involve citizens outside their home; repelling a foreign invader could not be done solely within one’s home, nor could suppressing an insurrection, or resisting government tyranny.

An objector may reason that these purposes aren’t necessities in the way they may have been at the time ratification. This is irrelevant, as the Court states: “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad” (p.63). At the time of adoption, this is how the right was understood and all are lawful purposes regardless of whether future generations would exercise the lawful purpose later. The fact remains they are lawful purposes, require the people to be outside of their homes, and therefore demonstrate the idea that the Second Amendment’s lawfully protects guns outside of the home by necessity.

We see from Heller itself that the Court lists multiple lawful purposes in plurality, not restricting the Second Amendment to a singular lawful purpose. The Court explicitly details at least five purposes that involve or require activity outside of the home. Therefore we can easily conclude the suggestion that the Court has ruled – or could rule – that the only lawful purpose is gun possession for self-defense within a home, is absurd, defying logic and reason as well as the explicit written letter of the ruling.

Be sure to check out part two of this series as we continue to look at why the Second Amendment protects your right to keep and bear arms outside of the home.

This article was originally published on Brenner Brief. Original publish date Nov 22, 2013. Original author, Matt MacBradaigh.

Sen. Barbara Boxer Allows Terrorism To Dictate Second Amendment Rights

The inane arguments used by the left to oppose firearms freedom cannot stand on logic, and belie Democrats’ claims that they support the Second Amendment rights.

In May, the Associated Press reported that the Senate rejected an effort to expand the use of firearms on some of the United States’ most frequently visited federal lands, controlled by the Army Corps of Engineers. The proposed amendment, backed by the National Rifle Association, would have allowed use of firearms for any legal purpose on lands managed by the Army Corps of Engineers, which oversees nearly 12 million acres abounding in lakes, rivers, campsites and hiking trails. These lands are visited by 370 million people annually, more than visit the property of any other federal agency. About 80 percent of these lands are within 50 miles of urban areas, making them accessible destinations. Currently, firearms on those properties are limited to activities like target-range shooting and hunting, and weapons must be unloaded while in transit to those activities.

The amendment, proposed by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) and found here, would have updated the Sportsmen’s Act of 2012, Senate bill S.3525 (full text here). It enjoyed bipartisan support, including from Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Patrick Toomey (R-PA). However, the vote for the proposed amendment was 56-43, falling short of the 60 votes needed to enact it into law. The Associated Press stated the defeat “hand[ed] gun control advocates a modest success” in the recent gun-control debate. But the rationale for opposing the amendment exposes the inane, sophomoric dogma of prominent gun control advocates.

Senator Barbara Boxer

Sen. Coburn said the right to bear arms should be the same on Corps property as it already is in national parks. Opponents claim the weapons could threaten critical facilities such as dams and flood control projects.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) has said allowing more guns onto Corps property would increase danger to the dams, flood control systems and other crucial water projects, stating, “This critical infrastructure is a target for terrorists,” and that allowing more guns “sets up a national security threat. It endangers people.”

Let us consider this. The law already allows for loaded guns to be present on these very same lands for some purposes, like hunting and target practice. The amendment would have allowed guns for any otherwise lawful purpose. The bill, S.3525, or the Sportsmen’s Act of 2012, already included provisions for “Making public lands public” (Section 101) and “Target Practice and Marksmanship Training” (Section 111), independent of the failed amendment. But the rationale for opposing the amendment is that it allows firearms near critical infrastructure — which, by law, we already allow for some purposes — and that that infrastructure might be a potential target of terrorists. Therefore we need to continue to restrict access to guns; not all guns categorically, but just for some purposes that are perfectly lawful elsewhere.

One is tempted to stop and ask: Is Sen. Boxer really that stupid? 

One is tempted to stop and ask: Is Sen. Boxer really that stupid? Or does she think the American public is so stupid as to accept this flimsy rationale? Does the Senator believe that this law, which prevents just a few purposes of currently lawful gun use, would stop terrorists from targeting waterways?

The ridiculousness of the dogma held by prominent anti-gun personalities is exposed in legislative battles such as these. When challenged by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) regarding her attempt to curb Second Amendment rights through legislation, senior California Senator Dianne Feinstein felt the need to clarify that she’s “not a sixth grader.” The left seems to interpret the simplicity of the conservative argument as an affront to its intelligence.

One wonders nevertheless if Boxer, the junior senator from California, likewise might benefit from a word lesson on inane: “silly, empty, unsubstantial, lacking significance, meaning or point.” Here’s another: sophomoric, or “conceited and overconfident of knowledge but poorly informed and immature.”

It is certainly immature, silly, lacking significance, poorly informed, and half-witted to propose terrorism as a reason to selectively ban guns from lands where we already allow them for hunting and target-shooting purposes. That gun control advocates stoop to such arguments betrays the weakness of those arguments. They rely on bogeymen, and reveal that the left’s claim of strong support for Second Amendment rights, or America’s “hunting and sporting” heritage, is a lie.

By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.

Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 

This  article also appears on The Brenner Brief. (Original publication June 14, 2013). 

Open Letter to MIT Professor Christopher Knittel: 5 Ways You Don't Get It On Gun Control

MIT professor Christopher Knittel recently penned an opinion piece in The Huffington Post titled "Time for Real Gun Control, Not Just Window Dressing." Knittel is a self-described life-long hunter and applied economics professor in the Sloan School of Management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology whose research focuses on the costs, benefits, and effectiveness of policy.

Knittel says "Let's not kid ourselves: An assault weapon ban (AWB) is purely window dressing. An assault weapon is merely a semi-automatic rifle that carries its bullets in a magazine and looks vicious." Gun rights advocates would like that ... until they realize he means AWB doesn't go far enough. Knittel proves the truth of Will Rogers proverb — take someone out of their arena, and they're just plain dumb. In five major ways, Knittel proves he doesn't get it on gun control.

1. Knittel: Ban all semi-automatic weapons that accept magazines:

Knittel: "Meaningful gun control starts with banning semi-automatic weapons that carry their ammunition in magazines."

Counterpoint:
The major problem with this idea is that it's not constitutional. Really. The classic response is that "regulation is permitted" on some basis of degree. This is only part true.  The Supreme Court agrees restrictions on prohibition of arms by felons and mentally ill and against carrying in certain places like courthouses, jails, and schools. That doesn't mean any gun you believe is "too dangerous" is justifiably banned. The Court ruled in U.S. vs. Miller (1939) and D.C. vs. Heller (2008) that weapons in "common use at the time" are protected arms. Semi-automatics are in very common use in our time and have been since 1903. The Court has also said in Heller it is unconstitutional to ban an entire class of weapons popularly chosen by the American people (p.56-57); and there is no legal basis for limiting the right based on interest-balancing policy concerns. This means that the right can't be limited just because gun violence is a problem (p.62-63). The Court states, "we are aware of the problem of [gun] violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution...But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table" (p.64).

2. Knittel: Use gun buy-back programs to reduce existing guns:

Knittel doesn't propose making existing guns illegal. "Instead, I propose we adopt an aggressive buy-back program that is funded through a tax on gun and ammunition sales... For example, the first year of the program could pay $200 for such weapons. The next year could pay $300. And so on."

Counterpoint:
Gun buyback? Scholarly peer-reviewed research – like that from the British Journal of Criminology – concluded it didn't have any effect in Australia. Would it work here? While not attempted at a national level, local level attempts have yielded poor results. By what reason do we conclude it's likely to produce better results nation-wide? The National Research Council published a study in 2004 that analyzed any effectiveness of these programs and concluded, "the theory underlying gun buyback programs is badly flawed and the empirical evidence demonstrates the ineffectiveness of these programs."

Estimates in 2009 held there were 310 million guns. There have been millions purchased since. CNN reported in December 2012 alone there were more than 2.8 million NICS checks. True not every NICS check results in a sale, but many checks result in more than one firearm purchased. Who in their right mind would accept $200-300 for a rifle that costs $800-3,000?  It's a safe bet that millions of gun owners in the "take them from my cold, dead hands" crowd would never turn in a gun under any circumstances.

And how are we going to pay for buying back millions of guns? With a tax on guns and ammunition? This would also likely be subject to legal challenge if the tax were high enough it made purchase prohibitive and thereby made the right to self-defense impossible to exercise from a practical standpoint (The Court said, "a statute which, under the pretence of regulating, amounts to a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose of defense, would be clearly unconstitutional" (p.57). There's also the minor problem of $16 trillion in national debt, and possible sequestration of the Federal government's budget. Given that a buy-back would likely cost billions, the financial feasibility seems questionable.

3. Knittel: Hunting and Home defense would be preserved ... kind of:

Knittel: "But, what about the legitimate uses for guns? Such a ban would still allow hunters to use bolt-action rifles and pump-action shotguns for hunting mammals and birds. These are the same weapons I used in the past to hunt deer, pheasants, ducks, doves, and more. A pump-action shotgun or a single-action revolver is a also quite effective home-defense weapon."

Counterpoint:
First, this completely misses the point of the Second Amendment. While hunting is a lawful purpose of guns, it is not the main "core lawful purpose", which is "self-defense" (pp.56 & 58). Second, single-action revolver?  This is from a guy who grew up using guns?  I'm not buying it. For the uninformed, single-action revolvers hold a maximum of 6 shots, but more importantly, the hammer must be manually cocked each time you fire. Even if there is just one attacker, this is not ideal for self-defense in stressful situations. If there are multiple attackers, forget about it.

4. Knittel: Enjoyment vs. Safety trade-off:

Knittel: "Such a ban, while reducing the ability for people to kill other people, does not come without costs. Millions of law-abiding citizens get more enjoyment out of carrying and shooting semi-automatic weapons than they do from their close cousins. Many also get enjoyment from of carrying vicious looking "assault weapons." Again, this is the fundamental trade-off: lowering the enjoyment law-abiding citizens get from shooting semi-automatic weapons, while reducing the number of Newtown-like events."

Counterpoint:
Enjoyment of guns? Dude, what?! Okay, yes, it is fun to go to the range and pop off a few rounds, but Knittel clearly has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to the purpose of the Second Amendment (as noted above, self-defense). It has nothing to do with "enjoyment". There is no utilitarian calculus used to evaluate our inherent, pre-existing right to defense — and even if there were, the idea that banning semi-automatic rifles would yield positive results in such a calculus fails to consider at least three important things: First, according to widely respected criminologist James Alan Fox of Northeastern University in Boston, handguns are the favorite weapon of choice among mass shooters — not rifles (the Virginia Tech shooter used handguns and mostly 10 round magazines); second, this assumes that such a ban would be effective in reducing homicides or preventing mass shootings — but no evidence exists to suggest this is the case; third, citizens use guns to defend themselves by even the most cynical peer-reviewed study 152,000 times per year (other peer-reviewed research suggests 256-373,000 is more accurate).

5. Knittel: The 'citizen-owned Nukes' straw man nonsense and other falsehoods:

Knittel: "The United States has a long history of regulating firearms. Normal citizens cannot bear nuclear arms; they can't bear rocket launchers, tanks, or a long list of other arms. There are also severe restrictions on owning fully automatic guns. These restrictions effectively make them illegal for most of us."

Counterpoint:
This argument both teeters on the ridiculously absurd as well as being factually incorrect.  Let's start with the absurd. No one credible (and maybe no one at all) is arguing for private ownership of tactical nukes. This is straw man fallacy at its worst; straw man means you set up a fictitious argument that your opponent isn't even making and then tear it down to make the opposition look weak. Now let's tackle the incorrect. According to the ATF, you actually can own a rocket launcher under the 1934 National Firearms Act. Where can you find one and at what cost? I don't know or care; the fact is, it's legal. If you can afford it, you just have to pay a $200 tax and fill out the paperwork. Machine guns are also legal according to the ATF. Critics cite cost of pre-1986 full auto machine guns, however according to the ATF, you can convert or "make" your own — just fill out the paperwork and pay $200.

So if you're reading Mr. Knittel, or someone sends you this article, two things: I would expect a better prepared argument from someone as highly educated and intelligent as I presume you must be to be teaching at MIT. Second, if you ever want to debate the topic, let me know and I'll be happy to oblige.

By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.

Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 

This article also appears on PolicyMic. (Original publication February 23, 2013).

Open Letter to MIT Professor Christopher Knittel: 5 Ways You Don’t Get It On Gun Control

by Matt MacBradaigh | Feb 23, 2013 | Gun Control Facts | 1 comment

MIT professor Christopher Knittel recently penned an opinion piece in The Huffington Post titled “Time for Real Gun Control, Not Just Window Dressing.” Knittel is a self-described life-long hunter and applied economics professor in the Sloan School of Management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology whose research focuses on the costs, benefits, and effectiveness of policy.

Knittel says “Let’s not kid ourselves: An assault weapon ban (AWB) is purely window dressing. An assault weapon is merely a semi-automatic rifle that carries its bullets in a magazine and looks vicious.” Gun rights advocates would like that … until they realize he means AWB doesn’t go far enough. Knittel proves the truth of Will Rogers proverb — take someone out of their arena, and they’re just plain dumb. In five major ways, Knittel proves he doesn’t get it on gun control.

1. Knittel: Ban all semi-automatic weapons that accept magazines:

Knittel: “Meaningful gun control starts with banning semi-automatic weapons that carry their ammunition in magazines.”

Counterpoint:

The major problem with this idea is that it’s not constitutional. Really. The classic response is that “regulation is permitted” on some basis of degree. This is only part true.  The Supreme Court agrees restrictions on prohibition of arms by felons and mentally ill and against carrying in certain places like courthouses, jails, and schools. That doesn’t mean any gun you believe is “too dangerous” is justifiably banned. The Court ruled in U.S. vs. Miller (1939) and D.C. vs. Heller (2008) that weapons in “common use at the time” are protected arms. Semi-automatics are in very common use in our time and have been since 1903. The Court has also said in Heller it is unconstitutional to ban an entire class of weapons popularly chosen by the American people (p.56-57); and there is no legal basis for limiting the right based on interest-balancing policy concerns. This means that the right can’t be limited just because gun violence is a problem (p.62-63). The Court states, “we are aware of the problem of [gun] violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution…But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table” (p.64).

2. Knittel: Use gun buy-back programs to reduce existing guns:

Knittel doesn’t propose making existing guns illegal. “Instead, I propose we adopt an aggressive buy-back program that is funded through a tax on gun and ammunition sales… For example, the first year of the program could pay $200 for such weapons. The next year could pay $300. And so on.”

Counterpoint:

Gun buyback? Scholarly peer-reviewed research – like that from the British Journal of Criminology – concluded it didn’t have any effect in Australia. Would it work here? While not attempted at a national level, local level attempts have yielded poor results. By what reason do we conclude it’s likely to produce better results nation-wide? The National Research Council published a study in 2004 that analyzed any effectiveness of these programs and concluded, “the theory underlying gun buyback programs is badly flawed and the empirical evidence demonstrates the ineffectiveness of these programs.”

Estimates in 2009 held there were 310 million guns. There have been millions purchased since. CNN reported in December 2012 alone there were more than 2.8 million NICS checks. True not every NICS check results in a sale, but many checks result in more than one firearm purchased. Who in their right mind would accept $200-300 for a rifle that costs $800-3,000?  It’s a safe bet that millions of gun owners in the “take them from my cold, dead hands” crowd would never turn in a gun under any circumstances.

And how are we going to pay for buying back millions of guns? With a tax on guns and ammunition? This would also likely be subject to legal challenge if the tax were high enough it made purchase prohibitive and thereby made the right to self-defense impossible to exercise from a practical standpoint (The Court said, “a statute which, under the pretence of regulating, amounts to a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose of defense, would be clearly unconstitutional” (p.57). There’s also the minor problem of $16 trillion in national debt, and possible sequestration of the Federal government’s budget. Given that a buy-back would likely cost billions, the financial feasibility seems questionable.

3. Knittel: Hunting and Home defense would be preserved … kind of:

Knittel: “But, what about the legitimate uses for guns? Such a ban would still allow hunters to use bolt-action rifles and pump-action shotguns for hunting mammals and birds. These are the same weapons I used in the past to hunt deer, pheasants, ducks, doves, and more. A pump-action shotgun or a single-action revolver is a also quite effective home-defense weapon.”

Counterpoint:

First, this completely misses the point of the Second Amendment. While hunting is a lawful purpose of guns, it is not the main “core lawful purpose“, which is “self-defense” (pp.56 & 58). Second, single-action revolver?  This is from a guy who grew up using guns?  I’m not buying it. For the uninformed, single-action revolvers hold a maximum of 6 shots, but more importantly, the hammer must be manually cocked each time you fire. Even if there is just one attacker, this is not ideal for self-defense in stressful situations. If there are multiple attackers, forget about it.

4. Knittel: Enjoyment vs. Safety trade-off:

Knittel: “Such a ban, while reducing the ability for people to kill other people, does not come without costs. Millions of law-abiding citizens get more enjoyment out of carrying and shooting semi-automatic weapons than they do from their close cousins. Many also get enjoyment from of carrying vicious looking “assault weapons.” Again, this is the fundamental trade-off: lowering the enjoyment law-abiding citizens get from shooting semi-automatic weapons, while reducing the number of Newtown-like events.”

Counterpoint:

Enjoyment of guns? Dude, what?! Okay, yes, it is fun to go to the range and pop off a few rounds, but Knittel clearly has no idea what he’s talking about when it comes to the purpose of the Second Amendment (as noted above, self-defense). It has nothing to do with “enjoyment”. There is no utilitarian calculus used to evaluate our inherent, pre-existing right to defense — and even if there were, the idea that banning semi-automatic rifles would yield positive results in such a calculus fails to consider at least three important things: First, according to widely respected criminologist James Alan Fox of Northeastern University in Boston, handguns are the favorite weapon of choice among mass shooters — not rifles (the Virginia Tech shooter used handguns and mostly 10 round magazines); second, this assumes that such a ban would be effective in reducing homicides or preventing mass shootings — but no evidence exists to suggest this is the case; third, citizens use guns to defend themselves by even the most cynical peer-reviewed study 152,000 times per year (other peer-reviewed research suggests 256-373,000 is more accurate).

5. Knittel: The ‘citizen-owned Nukes’ straw man nonsense and other falsehoods:

Knittel: “The United States has a long history of regulating firearms. Normal citizens cannot bear nuclear arms; they can’t bear rocket launchers, tanks, or a long list of other arms. There are also severe restrictions on owning fully automatic guns. These restrictions effectively make them illegal for most of us.”

Counterpoint:

This argument both teeters on the ridiculously absurd as well as being factually incorrect.  Let’s start with the absurd. No one credible (and maybe no one at all) is arguing for private ownership of tactical nukes. This is straw man fallacy at its worst; straw man means you set up a fictitious argument that your opponent isn’t even making and then tear it down to make the opposition look weak. Now let’s tackle the incorrect. According to the ATF, you actually can own a rocket launcher under the 1934 National Firearms Act. Where can you find one and at what cost? I don’t know or care; the fact is, it’s legal. If you can afford it, you just have to pay a $200 tax and fill out the paperwork. Machine guns are also legal according to the ATF. Critics cite cost of pre-1986 full auto machine guns, however according to the ATF, you can convert or “make” your own — just fill out the paperwork and pay $200.

So if you’re reading, Mr. Knittel – or someone sends you this article, two things: I would expect a better prepared argument from someone as highly educated and intelligent as I presume you must be to be teaching at MIT. Second, if you ever want to debate the topic, let me know and I’ll be happy to oblige.

This article was originally published on PolicyMic.com, now Mic.com. Original publish date Feb 23, 2013. Original author, Matt MacBradaigh.