If the gun is primarily a symbol, then it is a symbol of what?
To some it is a symbol of Man’s cruelty, or generally of evil. To others it is a symbol of the love and protection of life and liberty – a defense against evil.
Why would one person take one view as opposed to the other? It seems to me that the more good person is often trying to point out the differences between good and evil, whereas the more evil person wants to maintain some confusion over the matter.
“Get those guns out of the community” then, might be a reaction to a desire to maintain some of that confusion, to avoid addressing something they want kept hidden in the fog. The “bitter clinger” charge lashes out against guns and religion, both of which tend to draw attention to the differences between good and evil. The “bitter clinger” charge, as I see it, reinforces this guns-as-a-symbol concept to explain the rift between the antis and the pro 2As.
See; isn’t this fun?
I like Marko Kloos’s view: the gun is primarily a symbol of civilization.
I like Marko’s idea too, but with the explicit acknowledgment that with gun-wielding civilization comes a lot of stuff, both good AND bad, but on balance it is far preferable to the various alternatives; civilizations are not monolithic, nor are they all similar.
It could be viewed as a potential, that is, not good or bad or anything in and of itself, but it potentially amplifies the feelings, thoughts, beliefs, and actions of the person in control of it. People who fear their own negative potential see it embodied in the gun, people at peace with themselves don’t see the problem, etc.