The writer, Kaili Joy Gray, argues in the piece above that liberals should defend the second amendment right to keep and bears as vigorously as they do for first amendment rights to free speech. His argument amounts to this:
"[The second amendment] is the right of revolution."
This is to say that the constitution allows its citizenry to violently overthrow the government it describes.
I have never cottoned to this idea and it is not the first time I've heard it.
If you truly intend to overthrow the government, why are you so concerned that your actions are justified by its legal code? Have you not already implicitly decided that the government is illegitimate? You do you seek legal cover for your actions? Will that help you at your treason trial if your revolution fails?
The legalized revolution argument does not follow for me at all. Perhaps you might be worried that without the constitution, the government will take your guns. If you think the government can remove all firearms from all homes, you are not following the news very closely. America's inner cities are full of gun violence.
The government has a decade long "war on drugs" that cannot ebb the flow of pot into quite a few American homes. Why would a ban on guns be more effective? If you really want your revolution, guns will be available.
Assuming that we want to continue with the constitutional government, I do think we need to consider the role of gun ownership in our increasingly urban and populous society. As guns are lethal weapons, they deserve at least as much regulation as, say, cars and perhaps as much regulation as controlled substances. If one must call back to the constitution for justification, I believe you will see that the government is tasked to "promote the general welfare" amongst other things. I think controlling the availability of lethal weapons falls into this category, perhaps more so than even drugs.
The constitution already outlines a number of legal and peaceful ways to change the regime and I would rather we focused on those. The attempt to justify violent revolution with the constitution is sickening and feeble-minded.