Insty linked to Uncle’s post here, but also to a post by Roger Kimball which I think is well worth reading. Sometimes it helps to have the perspective of someone not in the meat of this political battle we fight:
But behind the panoply of motivations there is, I suspect, this fundamental philosophical divide: On the one side are people who see that we live in a free society, understand that freedom is not freeâ€”that it can often be quite an expensive qualityâ€”and who understand further that preserve freedom requires that individuals stand up for themselves, physically as well as in other ways.On the other side of the divide are people who see that we live in a free society, who may also understand that freedom is not freeâ€”they, too, might admit that it can often be quite an expensive qualityâ€”but who wish to cede important parts of that responsibility to the state. The former are likely to be small-government, low-tax supporters of the Second Amendment. The latter are likely to be big government, high-tax critics of the Second Amendment.
That alludes to something I’ve long believed: this fight is about a whole lot more than just guns. Glenn Reynolds has alluded to this before as well, by saying that how you view this issue says a lot about how you view your fellow citizen. I agree with that. The right to bear arms is just one aspect of a free people, but it’s one of the hardest aspect to accept if you have contempt for your fellow citizen.