and didn't own guns, maybe the cops wouldn't want all that military stuff and act like occupying troops! This militarization of law enforcement is your fault!"
MacGillis' explanation as to why libertarians should support the violation of the right to the means of defending one's liberty is a bit convoluted. Basically, the fact that most Americans can own firearms--including guns well suited for rather "unsportsmanlike" activities like self-defense and resisting tyranny--makes cops "on edge" (MacGillis' term) . . . and thus apparently justifies teargassing and arresting journalists, aiming sniper rifles at citizens with their hands up, and screaming obscenities at them:
Note, by the way, that even MacGillis acknowledges that fulfillment of
the forcible citizen disarmament advocates' gun ban wishlist--banning
private sales, so-called "assault weapons," and standard capacity
magazines--would make police work only "slightly less threatening." Does he believe that the decades-long trend of the transformation of "peace officers" to "warrior cops" will be reversed by a slight reduction in cops' perception of the threats they think they face?