Recently this video came up in my facebook feed. It's a spoof of a man committing a modern-day workplace mass shooting armed with weaponry from the era in which our 2nd Amendment was ratified. In the time it takes him to rearm his muzzleloader, the office has cleared out.
It brings up a very good point. Weapons aren't the same as they were back then. A disgruntled maniac in a hotel balcony could not have killed 50 revelers in 1789. A single man's capacity to kill many of his neighbors has greatly increased. Many argue that we must reduce the firepower available to the citizenry to avoid mass shootings.
However, to do so in a linear, reactionary fashion risks subverting the entire purpose of the 2nd Amendment. Unfortunately people get too hung up on the literal wording of our Bill of Rights and lose sight of the intended meaning. The 2nd Amendment could be worded something like the people shall be permitted sufficient arms to overthrow their government if necessary. Not perfect, but at least it tells the pedantic shall not be infringed sticklers to take a hike, as well as those who pretend the law is about recreational use. It probably should include something about reasonable self defense as well, but the 2nd Amendment was written as guidance for the balance of physical force between the government and the governed. The 1st Amendment was to prevent a government monopoly on propaganda, the 2nd Amendment was to prevent a government monopoly on firepower. There should never exist the condition where a significant majority of the people wish to overthrow their government but are cowed by the fear of massacre. (Which is always the case in a tyranny.)
It seems to most of us that we've long passed the point at which the 2nd Amendment provided a fair balance of firepower. The government is allowed to have bombers, attack helicopters, and tanks. Not only are we not allowed those weapons platforms, but we are not allowed the countering weapons either, such as SAMs and RPGs. A face-off between the American people and the American government would be extremely one-sided. Look at how our military mows through Muslim armies & militias (when allowed to engage freely). Even the most dirt-poor Jihadis are better armed than us, the AK-47 being a far more powerful rifle than anything we're allowed. One could make the argument that, since we don't stand a chance rebelling against the federal government anyway, there's no point in allowing semi-automatic rifles that are often turned against innocent crowds by madmen.
However, a recent event does provide evidence that these firearms do indeed empower the people against an overreaching government. In the Bundy ranch incident, a large number of armed civilians stood off against armed government officers. The government officers wisely determined their best outcome was a Pyrrhic victory, and stood down. The Bundies and some of the others, probably a bit arrogant from their victory, went on to stage another showdown in Oregon which was thwarted by authorities. The cause being defended was much stronger in Oregon (Nevada being quite dubious in my opinion), but they failed nevertheless. The difference was all about turnout. Nevada showed that a significant number of armed citizens can exert power over a government armed with tanks and nukes.
Whatever the current balance, the principle remains largely intact. The stronger the firepower of the government, the stronger the firepower of the people must be. It's pretty apparent. If the government has machine guns we can't beat them with rocks. (But woe the government armed with only scissors.) For the ethos of the 2nd Amendment to hold (and who is going to argue that the people should be powerless against their government?) requires something of an arms race to maintain a balance of power. The obvious solution, if one wishes to reduce civilian firepower, is to also reduce government firepower. Thus the balance is maintained.
The counterweight to this is that the military-intelligence complex isn't just used to maintain domestic control, but still serves it's primary role of preventing and deterring foreign invasion. We can't realistically reduce our military to an army of scissors when the Russians still have nukes pointed at us, and when the Mexicans would probably love to reclaim the US Southwest if they thought they could get away with it. So we must maintain a military strong enough to deter foreign aggression, knowing that one cost is a more heavily armed citizenry required to maintain an internal balance of power. The problem with this should be obvious to anyone. The United States does not keep a military strong enough to defend from foreign aggression, but one strong enough to enforce US global hegemony. We can see right away that the 2nd Amendment and global empire are incompatible. This puts conservatives in a bind. Which do they cherish more? The Constitution, or American empire?
Hopefully the answer is obvious, and liberals won't mind the answer either. A more lightly armed populace and a greatly reduced military are just what they're hoping for. But they won't like the other side of it.
Today they're saying we need to have a national conversation about gun control. No, we don't, actually. We could, but it would be entirely academic. A while back this blog proposed Group-Based Gun Control, which could also be thought of as distributed gun control or patronage gun control. I think it's a great idea, but it doesn't matter, because it fails for the same reason as all gun control measures. Until our government can reliably keep illegal drugs out of the country, or even illegal people for that matter (let alone having them in the tens of millions), the notion that they could properly enforce any gun control is ludicrous. It's cliche, but when our government outlaws guns, only outlaws will have guns. Even the recent shooting which they're rallying around featured illegal weapons. The Bataclan massacre killed even more in a country with strict gun control. We could cite examples endlessly. If the left really wants gun control, they have to allow strong national borders, and probably enforcement of state borders as well. Conservatives won't go for internal border checks because it limits freedoms. Liberals won't want it because it limits social justice, and they like to import voters through porous borders. So it'll never happen, so we won't have gun control. They should give up, not because gun control is a bad idea, but because they aren't willing to pay the price for it.
As for me, I'm willing to have gun control, so long as the balance of power against the government is maintained and there is the option of reasonable self defense. Bring our boys home, lock down the borders, and let's solve this problem of maniacs with machine guns. Everything else is just theatrics.
No comments:
Post a Comment