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?