There’s a thread about this, and almost everyone is.
Scanning for others who are generally pro-gun on the boards, I note that they actually rank more authoritarian than average (average for BB, still well below the line). If that sounds counter-intuitive, like more libertarian ought to be more against regulation and therefore pro-gun-if-gun-is-what-the-individual-wants then I think there are two possible answers:
- Tests that measure this sort of thing are wound up in contemporary politics and the signifiers they use to determine your position don’t always match your actual position.
- Actually being pro-gun is kind of an authoritarian position.
I’d say it’s more the latter. Oppression can come from anywhere: the government, landlords, creditors, neighbours, strangers. More guns in the hands of everyone means more oppression by threat of deadly violence. Guns symbolize oppression, and while this isn’t true for everyone, I think a substantial portion of the people who would argue that guns symbolize freedom to them have confused freedom for the ability to oppress others.
Unfortunately the US supreme court is so politicized that we really don’t know what passes constitutional muster. Keep in mind you are talking about what the second amendment means based on a 2008 ruling and a 2010 ruling. The second amendment didn’t support an individual’s right to own guns for personal use for 211 years, and it has supported it for 10 years. Precedents get overturned.
That said, if rephrased to, “The current court is likely to uphold rulings that would overturn barring private ownership or renewing the AWB,” you may be right. But I wouldn’t discount the chance those craven excuses for jurists cave to public pressure, since caving to political interest is basically what they did to make the rulings you cite.
