The following is my comment on this linked article, Why Do 'Pro-Life' Pols Like Paul Ryan Protect Weapons of Mass Murder? by John Nichols. The Nation:
Look John Nichols, you are probably my favorite writer for The Nation. I find myself agreeing with you quite often. I especially like your economic[s] articles. However, this article of your screams out the question, if you are for gun control (or even elimination) and are appealing to Paul Ryan on the grounds of his inconsistency regarding guns and abortions, then why aren't you against abortion if you're for gun control?
Now, I realize there are degrees of gun control and also differing positions on when and why abortion, but my point is still valid. There are those afterall who are 100% for abortion-on-demand (no questions asked) and also for a 100% gun ban. Are they radically inconsistent in your view then? What I'm saying is that you can't rip Ryan for being against gun control but also against abortion when you aren't also then against those who are for gun control but against abortion control (or banning).
My view is that the gun-libertarians definitely have the historical facts on their side concerning the American Revolution and the reason for the 2nd amendment. That doesn't mean that there haven't been scoundrels down through our history who have abused the 2nd amendment for purposes of slavery and oppressing the indigenous population, but those abuses do not nullify the fact that federal tyranny is a very real possibility, as much as we'd like to think we can simply just trust the system now. We couldn't trust it economically. The banksters weren't above causing people to become homeless, etc. I'm sure quite a few people would be alive today if it hadn't been for the Great Recession brought on by deregulation and which downturn was clearly predicted by Brooksley Born and others way back. So if they could do it economically, why put it past them violently?
The right way to go about all of this is two-fold: 1) psychological help and screening and vastly reducing the drugging of the youth with dangerous psychotropics and 2) a Constitutional amendment if you can get one worked out that will protect against the potential for a dictatorship arising. I'd say number 1 would be much easier and likely more fruitful.