Before Election Day, the NRA was doing what it always does: Raising the specter of the liberal bogeyman -- you know, the Incipient Dictator Who Wants To Take Your Guns Away -- in the person of Barack Obama. See, for instance, this ad.

So it shouldn't really be a big surprise that, after the election, one of the only segments of the retail economy that did well was in guns:

Weapons dealers in much of the United States are reporting sharply higher sales since Barack Obama won the presidency a week ago.

Buyers and sellers attribute the surge to worries that Obama and a Democratic-controlled Congress will move to restrict firearm ownership, despite the insistence of campaign aides that the president-elect supports gun rights and considers the issue a low priority. Video Watch shoppers snap up guns of all types »

According to FBI figures for the week of November 3 to 9, the bureau received more than 374,000 requests for background checks on gun purchasers -- a nearly 49 percent increase over the same period in 2007. Conatser said his store, Virginia Arms Company, has run out of some models -- such as the AR-15 rifle, the civilian version of the military's M-16 -- and is running low on others.

Such assault weapons are among the firearms that gun dealers and customers say they fear Obama will hit with new restrictions, or even take off the market.

There is also a racial component to these fears, which surfaces in attitudes like those voiced in this NYT piece about the decline of the South's political influence:

"I am concerned," Gail McDaniel, who owns a cosmetics business, said in the parking lot of the Shop and Save. "The abortion thing bothers me. Same-sex marriage."

"I think there are going to be outbreaks from blacks," she added. "From where I'm from, this is going to give them the right to be more aggressive."

But mostly, this is paranoia about gun ownership whipped up by the NRA:

Continue reading »

AP via YahooNews: 

The Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

The court's 5-4 ruling strikes down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision goes further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.[..]

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for four colleagues, (.pdf) said the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

This week has been filled with news of shootings. We had nine people killed in the Nebraska shopping mall, seven people killed in two separate shootings at Colorado religious establishments, and even a fight breaking out that turned into a shooting match at a Columbus mall. Not very festive news for the most festive time of the year.

All this has had me thinking about the FISA debate when proponents of the warrantless wiretapping were quick to argue it was necessary to give up freedoms for security. Would these same people apply that argument to the second amendment instead of the fourth? I think we all know the answer on that. Perhaps the next time a Republican Senator says that we should give up freedoms for security when it comes to listening in on phone calls, then he should be asked about giving up the right to bear arms as a way to protect us in church or at the local mall. Let's see how quickly the subject changes then.