NOVAE MILITIAE

That's the wording of a bumper sticker I saw about three decades ago, before I myself became interested in the issue of the right to keep and bear arms.  My own research informs me that this is the sentiment of millions of American gun owners.

However, that doesn't stop the occasional liberal hallucination about a gunless society.  In the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, we were treated to this piece by The New Yorker's Adam Gopnik.  Mr. Gopnik fantasizes about the return of the "assault-weapon" ban, after which he writes:

Rural America is hunting country, and hunters need rifles and shotguns—with proper licensing, we’ll live with the risk. There is no reason that any private citizen in a democracy should own a handgun.

No mention is made of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms in this article, and in typical Northereastern elitist style, Gopnik sneers that "we’ll live with the risk" all those backwards rural hunters pose to "us" with their sportiing arms.  Implicit in this remark is the notion that "we", the power elite of the BosWash Corridor, will one day take so-called "assault weapons" and handguns from Americans.

Like hell "you" will, Mr.Gopnik.  I suggest you read this Maryland Law Review article:

If domestic disarmament became policy in this country, tens of millions of Americans would simply hide their guns from the authorities. The majority of these guns are now, and would remain, unregistered. Thus, the majority of firearms would remain in the hands of their owners, or on the black market. Just as organized crime is able to smuggle tons of drugs into the country every year, it would be able to do the same with illicit firearms. Even if illegal imports could be entirely eliminated, guns are not particularly difficult to manufacture in a basement workshop with tools that can be obtained at a hardware store.

The vigorous attempt to enforce domestic disarmament would entail systematic violations of fundamental rights enjoyed by American citizens. Even if it proved possible to catch and prosecute only a small fraction of the projected number of those who would refuse to comply with registration or relinquishment requirements, both the courts and the nation's jails would almost certainly be overloaded.  Attempted enforcement of domestic disarmament would also likely result in law enforcement oppression, corruption, resistance, or rebellion (depending upon the officer). This, in turn, could very well lead to a breakdown in respect for the law and the institutions that make it.

There is an alarming potential for violence that would result from a serious attempt to disarm Americans. Many Americans are already preparing to meet force with force should gun prohibition laws be passed. The size of the militia movement is sure to increase should it become clear that the federal government intended to embark upon the wholesale disarmament of its citizens.

Domestic disarmament could be a cure worse than the disease. It would therefore be preferable, as Bruce-Briggs suggests, to drain the "mindless passion" out of the gun control debate and begin to discuss rationally what might realistically lead to a diminution of gun violence among a people that has historically been armed and will almost certainly remain so.

Liberal Yankees such as Mr. Gopnik have a false sense of how much power - and wisdom - they actually have.   They really should venture out to Middle America sometime and take a careful look around.