When it comes to guns, I'm not pro-2nd Amendment. I'm pro-liberty. The Constitution of the United States has nothing to do with a person's natural rights to property and defense.
I'll admit, I'm not doing as well at "going dim" as I meant to. Somehow the Pinterest app has made it back onto my phone. But Facebook (on desktops only) is the real temptress. And the debate about banning guns rages on.
Here's the anti-liberty argument that winds me up like no other:
Even granted access to firepower, citizens have no chance in uprising or defense against the government. Therefore, there is no point in firearm ownership and no reason not to regulate it.
Here's why the argument of futility is wonk:
1. There is historical precedent that superior firepower and numbers don't guarantee victory.
There are innumerable factors in the outcome of armed conflict. Among them are terrain, solidarity with a cause, funding, tactics, leadership, alliance, and chance. The U.S. won independence from Britain despite their disadvantage in arms access. In the 1970s, the U.S. withdrew from Vietnam despite their advantage.
In present day, the assertion that conflict with the state would be futile is dependent on
more than a few assumptions, including the compliance of the military, the resisting force being small, and most fighting taking place on an open field.
2. It illustrates the worst fears of a liberty advocate, solidifying their conviction.
If I were an anti-liberty state ward arguing for gun control, I'd steer as far away from arguments based on the government's ability to kill anyone it chooses without penalty as possible (especially since there's historical precedent for THAT, too). Libertarians see the state as an aggressor; this argument solidifies our concern that the state will slaughter those who resist government violence.
When presented with an argument hinged on the futility of self-defense, many people will begin choosing how they would prefer to die. I think you'll find a good portion of us will double down on preserving their access to firearms so they could choose to go out shooting.
TL;DR: Arguing the futility of defense is flawed AND will just make your pro-liberty opponent more sure of his or her convictions.
30 million avid civilian gun owners versus 1 million armed government agents.
I'm good with those odds.
Statists really haven't thought this through.
;)
Enjoyed your post.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit