I'm a big fan of writers who express impolitic statements in their true terms, rather than pretending that "journalist" is an elected position that punishes provocation. Pundits spend far too much time defining the boundaries of the debate rather than expanding them. So I'm sorry I missed this Walter Shapiro piece making the straightforward case for pro-gun control liberals to stop fiddling around the edges and take aim at the Second Amendment:
Since the NRA would probably claim that legislation to ban private possession of atomic weapons is part of a plot to destroy the Second Amendment, maybe it is time for liberals to stop denying the charge. Authenticity and truth-telling often work better in politics than weaselly and palpably insincere statements like, "No one is more dedicated a hunter and lover of the Second Amendment than I am, but..." If gun-control advocates are going to be hanged in effigy for their views, they should at least have the momentary enjoyment of making a speech from the scaffold expressing their true sentiments. Without having to endlessly fret about the constitutionality of any regulatory effort to reduce gun-related deaths, liberals might be able to directly discuss the benefits of such legislation in terms that even open-minded members of the NRA might appreciate.
Looking at the Bill of Rights with more than two centuries' hindsight, it is simply irrational that firearms have a protected position on par with freedom of speech and religion. Were Americans -- liberal or conservative -- writing a Constitution completely from scratch today, they probably would agree that something akin to "freedom to drive" was more far important than the "right to bear arms." [...]
At the moment, of course, repealing the Second Amendment seems as politically plausible as welcoming Iraq as the 51st state. But think of how many other causes have gone from the radical to the routine in a single generation. Not even a decade ago, civil unions for gay couples seemed laughably utopian. Now it is the bipartisan middle-ground position in both parties (insert second Cheney reference). When the conservative Federalist Society was founded in 1982 with the goal of combating the liberal tilt to the federal judiciary, not even its founders could have imagined how successful they would be a quarter-century later.
I don't share his optimism, but the case deserves to be read in full. My personal take is that the progression of rights tends to be towards expansion rather than constriction. Even the anti-abortion movement hasn't been able to abrogate the fundamental right to an abortion; they've followed an incrementalist strategy rather closely mirroring that of gun control advocates. Moreover, I don't see how you collect the tens of millions of guns currently floating throughout the land without rather remarkable bloodshed. That said, pro-lifers pursue incrementalism by arguing against abortion, and if liberals want to make any headway on gun control, assaulting the very legitimacy of freely available firearms may be their best hope. It's a slim hope, though, and not one that any elected Democrat who can read the polls will want to pin their candidacy on.
