- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Yes, a ban on guns would be inffective, but Shapiro didn't call for that. Repealing the 2nd Amendment wouldn't be a gun ban; it would simply allow legislatures to regulate gun ownership however we see fit without the obstacle of that amendment.
And no, the absence of guns wouldn't prevent incidents like the one at Virginia Tech, but Shapiro never said it would. While determined lunatics will still find a way to do harm, guns make it a lot easier to do harm, and it's almost axiomatic that making it more difficult to acquire guns will reduce (in the aggregate) the frequency and carnage of deadly rampages.
Also, the biggest delusion in this argument has got to be the idea that gun ownership, enabled by the 2nd Amendment, give us the ability to defend ourself against (let alone overthrow!) a tyrannical government. We're long past the time when even organized militias (let alone individuals) can effectively defend themselves against the military power of our government.
