11 Comments

Gun Control – The Second Amendment Is A Modern Day Farce

admin



I have to frequently remind people that my ideals lean Libertarian. This is because I am constantly challenging my assumptions, which in turn challenges everybody else’s assumptions.  To say the least, those who are pro-gun always have adverse reactions when I say I think the Second Amendment is outdated.

Again, let me emphasize that I am totally pro-gun. Hell, I will even go as far as saying I am probably more pro-gun than anybody else reading this. Anyway, I had better explain what I mean when I say the Second Amendment is outdate, even a modern day farce.

To start, a little background on the Second Amendment is necessary.  The Second Amendment was written by during a time of revolution. It was also written in a time when the general populace had weapons on par with what the government owned.  The founding fathers of the United States surely did intend for the populace to be able to dispatch a corrupt, tyrannical government.

However, the founding fathers, as brilliant as they were, did not achieve godhood.  They were fallible men whose good intentions could only go so far. They had no way to foresee the technological advances mankind would achieve in the coming centuries.

As it stands now, the governments weapons far surpasses anything that can be obtained legally.  Right now, people are worried about the government taking away their ability to legally purchase semi-automatic assault rifles.  What good are rifles against tanks, fighter jets, cruise missiles, stealth bombers, microwave cannons, biological weapons, and even nuclear weapons?

If you are one of those people who are scared of the government taking their guns, well you have totally missed the boat on that one.

Before I end this piece, I want to add that I am totally unsympathetic to the current administration trying to implement more gun control. Like many people, I think it’s absurd to implement more gun control in the name of the safety of law-abiding citizens.

However, in light of the national debate, I think that screaming for your Second Amendment rights does nothing to solve the issue, and I think that it is counter-productive to the situation at hand.

Comments

mike
Posted on January 5th, 2014

Lets look at a case study. Afghanistan is a place the size of Texas with a bunch of borderline cavemen with rifles and RPG’s and we haven’t even come close to pacifying them. If your assumption is that it is a force on force engagement with all the chips on the table then you know nothing of unconventional warfare. Your statement “As it stands now, the governments weapons far surpasses anything that can be obtained legally. Right now, people are worried about the government taking away their ability to legally purchase semi-automatic assault rifles. What good are rifles against tanks, fighter jets, cruise missiles, stealth bombers, microwave cannons, biological weapons, and even nuclear weapons?” is tragically shortsighted and assumes a 100% compliant apparatus of enforcement (military and LE) and a status quo over the entirety of an insurrection that excludes any outside sourcing. Again, look at Afghanistan as a case study and they are not a nation of highly educated, industrious people with a history of resistance and freedom.. Twice in 35 years they have run out a superpower. The 2nd Amendment still keeps us free.

admin
Posted on January 18th, 2014

And comparing Afghanistan’s government to the U.S. government is not short-sighted?

The situation out there is completely different than what is going on over here. For one, we haven’t dedicated our entire forces over there. Not only that, but you are ignoring the police force that exists in the U.S. Saying that the U.S. doesn’t have Afghanistan under control is a far cry from the U.S. populace overthrowing the government itself.

I’m not saying that people in the U.S. couldn’t overthrow the government, but they’d have to go far outside the bounds of what the government allows them to have. The Second Amendment is not enough to empower the people with the weapons it would take to take down a military as powerful as the United States military.

Mike P.
Posted on January 18th, 2014

You obviously and I would assume purposely did not address the qualifying statement I made about a “compliant apparatus of enforcement” (which would be the critical failure point if events went that far) as well as the maintenance of a status quo situationally ( don’t you think there would be many adversarial countries funneling weapons here to watch us consume ourselves ?). I don’t know where you learned about how insurgencies and counter-insurgencies succeed or fail but I did by formal training in the aforementioned and then participating in them so this discussion seems to be futile.

admin
Posted on January 19th, 2014

I don’t doubt that other countries would funnel weapons here if a there were massive social upheaval. That’s irrelevant to my point. What does the Second Amendment have to do with other countries sending weapons here or anywhere?

So what if you’ve been involved in that type of military action elsewhere? Have you seen an insurgency succeed in the United States? Do you think it would succeed if it happened strictly within the bounds of the Second Amendment as it is currently interpreted?

It’s obvious you are missing my point.

Mike P.
Posted on January 18th, 2014

You need to stop viewing it as a force on force engagement . Also at our peak THE U.S. ALONE (excluding NATO) had 100,000 troops in country and the assistance of over 300, 000 NATO and Afghans and that has been a failure. We are ten times the population of Afghanistan so if we use a one to one correlation that would mean we would need well over 1 million troops ( I don’t give the ANA a 1-to-1weight…just reality) to occupy a country of highly creative, highly industrial and historically non-compliant society and you’d need 100% compliance of the military and law enforcement which would never happen. Your assessment and postulation is based on a static model of force on force with complete mil/LE compliance which again is tragically flawed.

admin
Posted on January 19th, 2014

I don’t need to view it as a force on force engagement. Simply doing a one-to-one correlation isn’t taking into account several factors.

The mass of the United States population is a cowed people. You failed to mention the difference in experience with conflict in your comparison of populations. Even with the superior numbers you mentioned, Americans would be ripe for the slaughter, especially when you consider what weapons the United States military currently has, rather than what they used in Afghanistan.

Second, the mass of the United States population doesn’t have access to the same weapons (you mentioned Afghanis as having RPG launchers). It’s not like the Afghanis had to worry about our gun control laws.

The thing is I never said that the United States government couldn’t be overthrown. You are attacking a straw man. My whole point has been that current gun control laws do not allow for the average citizen to legally have access to anything that would come close to battling what the government has. The only other way for people to overthrow the government from within (excluding weapons being funneled in which is a red herring) is if a significant portion of the military left and took enough big toys with them.

Mike P.
Posted on January 18th, 2014

BTW we were the de facto government of AFG until about 5 years ago so the AFG vs. US gov comparison is flawed.

admin
Posted on January 19th, 2014

You brought up the comparison between the two governments in the first place. It’s irrelevant to my point.

Mike P.
Posted on January 19th, 2014

Again by discounting a changing situation miss the point an highlight your lack of tactical knowledge. The second amendment gives enough of a capability to resist in order for an insurgency to thrive. As for a an American insurgency that has succeeded … I believe that is how we were born as a country. Less than 30% of the country threw off the most powerful nation of the time while more than 30% of their peers supported the British crown . The only saving grace was a small amount of individual weapons. You also disregard the concept of a compliant apparatus of enforcement. Those police and military members that you postulate would crush the American people only armed with small arms have families that would be opposed to them and have immediate families that would eventually be targeted. That is how insurgencies exert pressure. You need to study a little more and refrain from discounting crucial training and practical experience only because you don’t poses it. We are both making assumptions but my assumptions are based on formal training and practical experience, yours are based on a static and one-dimensional opinion with no formal training and no practical experience. Perhaps…just perhaps, you could admit my points have merit?

Mike P.
Posted on January 19th, 2014

“Do you think it would succeed if it happened strictly within the bounds of the Second Amendment as it is currently interpreted?”
Absolutely because it could never stay with ANY boundaries. Neither the geographical nor the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment buys time just as it did against the British.
BTW, I never made a comparison between AFG and US governments because there was no government in AFG before we got there and then we were the government.

Mike P.
Posted on January 19th, 2014

Typo-
“The 2nd Amendment buys time just as individual arms did against the British.”



Leave your comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Featured Media

[ca_audio url="http://www.entropicmomentum.com/wp-content/uploads/mp3/Bitter.mp3" width="245" height="200" css_class="codeart-google-mp3-player"]

Donations

For every $600 donated, I'll create a new, full track.