you're reading...
Culture, Government, Life

Guns and the 2nd Amendment

I noticed some fallacious thinking about the second amendment on Twitter so I thought I’d try to make a clearer point here were I am not limited to 144 characters.

The question was asked, “What good will an AR-15 do against a stealth bomber.” The implication is that since the federal government has so much in the way of military hardware any direct confrontation is doomed to failure so the second amendment is pointless today. And it’s true. I can’t attack a tank, F-22 or similar military hardware with my Mosin Nagant (or AR-15 is the grand state of California would let me have one). However that misses a few key points.

First, if safety was the only concern of gun control activists why would they want to ban an AR-15 in the first place? They are not involved in very many murders/suicides. The numbers killed are barely noticeable when compared to the deaths caused by hand guns. The goal isn’t to save lives, it’s to get guns out of private hands. Many lawmakers admit as much (look up Diane Feinstein).

Second, it’s a big step to make the move to actually using the military to take out civilian targets within the US itself. I don’t believe any government would do that without tyranny being already fully at its maximum level and even then I don’t think it’s likely. China, an oppressive government, does not bomb its own citizens. It is more subtle than that. More likely you would see something similar to a swat team moving in. Which of course leads to…

Third, small arms can be effective to some extent at local level in direct confrontation. When you look at situations like Waco, the government, while eventually victorious, were so at a cost. That’s why it serves as a deterrent. Like Mutually Assured Destruction during the cold war my ability to strike back makes you less likely to strike unless necessary.

Also you don’t have to personally be armed to feel the benefits of the second amendment.

I can’t tell if the people who make such arguments are genuinely obtuse or if they are trying very hard to be.

And while I’m ranting I was also told that regulation, safe storage, mandatory training and background checks for all firearm purchases should be implemented. Well here in the great state of California those things are. We still have murders with guns. We still have suicides with guns. So I ask the question, what laws/regulations should we implement that would stop gun violence if those things don’t work. I get no answer on twitter, maybe here?



4 thoughts on “Guns and the 2nd Amendment

  1. Some other points missed about the “can’t take on the military”

    How about the fact a large number of current active duty personnel were raised by conservative parents, identify as conservative, etc — and the officer corp, people who would be issuing the orders are even more so.
    So let’s even call it as low as 1/3rd. Think they are simply going to NOT follow orders to fire on fellow citizens?
    Or do more.

    Next consider the veterans; who are more likely to be gun owners, maintain ties with current personnel. Heck in some cases trained the very people who would be sent out to round them up/fire on them.

    Let’s move on to the not polite subject of target selection; do the antis really think the people who would take up arms are stupid enough to stand in a field, shoulder to shoulder against the might of the military or perhaps it would be more like “Oh…..Politician X wants to take away our guns. We know where Politician X lives”?

    Look at what happened in L.A. when a former cop (I don’t name murderers) decided to kill some of the brass in the police department. Now imagine that in many cities at one time.

    We can also take a look at the horrific acts on bases — like Fort Hood. It is hard for the military to deploy tanks, aircraft if the people can’t get to the machines without facing gun fire. How about what happened in the Washington Navy Yard ?

    And one of the telling quotes on how I feel

    “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

    ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

    Bob S.

    P.S. the short answer to the last question is simply they aren’t interested in stopping gun violence but in control– stripping us of our rights.

    Posted by 3boxesofbs | January 14, 2015, 7:09 pm
    • Thanks for the comments. While I understand the point you are making here, I think you’ll only fuel the fire of gun control advocates by saying things like “We know where Politician X lives.” I don’t believe you’re advocating for people to go out and do that, but the pro gun control people, whether they are genuinely obtuse, or intentionally so, can use those words to push for further gun control.

      Posted by Far Out Madman | January 15, 2015, 7:54 am
      • FOM,

        I am not advocating violence against anyone. I realize your concern and addressed it carefully in my comment.

        That is why I clearly stated it was a consideration of what would happen if we were pushed.

        Frankly, I want the gun control advocates to fully understand that IF it ever comes time that the military is sent against us, our targets aren’t going to be limited. I find it ironic that the gun control advocates are fully behind sending armed agents to our houses; to confiscate firearms as some have suggested, to conduct checks on our mental health or ‘safe storage’. They have absolutely no compunction against freely admitting they want every gun owner to be registered; i.e. our location known.

        As you stated, again you are right, I’m not advocating violence. I simply do not want their to be any doubt, any shock or surprise that gun owners aren’t stupid enough to try to slug it out on the battlefield with the military.

        Bob S.

        Posted by 3boxesofbs | January 15, 2015, 8:08 am
      • Oh, I understood you weren’t. I am just careful about things like that as I have found that with some in the pro gun control group, accurately understanding the position of pro 2nd amendment folks is not of utmost importance. Cherry picking statements out of context is allowed if it can (however fallaciously) win more people to their side. Unfortunately people can be won over by those types of fallacious arguments very easily so it’s best (in my mind) to not give them the ammunition to do so.

        Posted by Far Out Madman | January 15, 2015, 8:20 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 144 other followers

%d bloggers like this: