Skip to main content

View Diary: The Second Amendment is not a suicide pact (286 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  They've Actually Got a Point (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    semiot, claude, lyvwyr101, reflectionsv37

    The "defense of liberty from the government" argument is indeed the core belief of the most ardent gun fetishists, and the strongest case against limiting firepower in private hands.

    The argument against it here is the dismissive one that such a "militia" would be no match for the US military if indeed we'd devolved into tyranny. But it's not convincing. Not just because the gun fetishists can't be convinced of anything: they're not committed to defending liberty, they're committed to having guns regardless of liberty.

    Around the world for over a half century now, self-armed militias have held off US military forces in every conflict that's been tried. Most lately in Afghanistan, but also in Iraq and Vietnam Not just the US military: the Soviets also in Afghanistan, even Ethiopians against the Italian army, and perhaps most clearly across the Southeast Mediterranean Arab Spring against national armies in Algeria, Libya, Egypt and Syria. Elsewhere in Arab countries where there are no widespread private gun hoards, like Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, rebellion was quickly and easily quashed. In fact the US military has not won or even stalemated any conflict worldwide since the dawn of modern weaponry (automated guns, high powered rockets, cars and radio) except against national armies - not militias.

    Starting an actual tyranny in the US would go smoothly. But sending Americans to America to enforce it would be harder. Convincing American troops to do so would start hard, harder than to fight foreigners who look, talk and live differently enough they can be easily dehumanized. And when the locals started picking them off the way locals in Iraq and Afghanistan lately have been picking off the same regiments abroad, the soldiers would hesitate even more to fight people who obviously do exactly what that soldier would if they were home and some other troop were invading. Especially after our troops have seen their commanders send them to Iraq (and send them back, and send them back) for a pack of lies and bloodlust. Among our troops, just ordering killing among any population that looks civilian is much harder now, both because the government's credibility is tattered and because local resistance has proved far more deadly than most anyone can tolerate. The knowledge by politicians, by the military, and by the general public of the effectiveness abroad of an armed populace to present militas to tyrannical invaders intimidates them, and should deter tyrants just as gun fetishists say it does.

    So the "defense of liberty" argument is actually as strong as the gun fetishists like to think it is. But it's still wrong. Because the problem isn't with the guns - it's with the people with the guns. Exactly as they like to say in reverse about what kills people: people not guns. The problem with these people is that they don't defend liberty. These gun fetishists are the Bush/Cheney base. They voted for Bush/Cheney and their ("Permanent") Republican Congress, then reelected them - even after they let the Qaeda strike us in 2001, and even after invading Iraq on lies in 2003 instead of getting Binladen. Even after all manner of tyrannies in the Patriot Acts, the warrantless wiretapping - to say nothing of the bank looting and a thousand other tyrannies. They rooted for Bush v Gore, and reelected the crooks even after 4 years of literal tyranny of the minority - because they're the minority. Yes, some gun fetishists are Democrats, but they're typically also Conservatives, just like West Virginia, Nebraska and Louisiana Democrats. The remaining arguably liberal gun fetishists are very few - and they didn't defend liberty with the ammo box either after the soap box and ballot box failed.

    Nobody does. We have had tyranny in this country for over a decade now. We had it before, too, especially if you're poor. Where are the rank and file NRA members in Harlem, defending liberty from tyrannical stop and frisk by Bloomberg's NYPD? Where are they in any ghetto, even White ghettoes, where a literal police state rules by force for its convenience, for fun and profit, regardless of liberty or human life? Nowhere, even though in that fight even the local gun fetishists far outnumber the tyrants in a very large tyrannized population perfect for protecting a militia just as in Palestine and elsewhere it's completely successful.

    The 2nd Amendment is a lie. It was not included in the Bill of Rights to protect liberty, but to protect slavery. The well-armed militias and local recruitable populations don't defend liberty, but rather insist on at least as much tyranny as the people can stand. The propositions of the 2nd Amendment have been proven as thoroughly and bloodily false as the failed 18th Amendment, Prohibition. Likewise it should be repealed now that our Constitutional democratic republic experiment has delivered factual results.

    The 2nd Amendment should be repealed, and replaced with one that instructs the government merely to protect people's right to self defense. If that does require a gun, America will surely have a gun for them - but only where it's required. Until we do, we will continue tyrannizing ourselves. Just as we always have.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 05:20:35 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site