Log in

Mon, Apr. 15th, 2013, 02:55 pm
Let's Talk about the 2nd Amendment...and guns

Amendment 2:(from Constitution)
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Definition of Militia:(from Wikipedia)
A militia generally refers to an army or other fighting force that is composed of non-professional fighters.

Additional Context:
This Amendment was written after a revolution against what was perceived as an unjust government.
At the time this was written a militia could be nearly as well armed and as effective as a fighting force as the existing armies.

This amendment appears to be designed to allow the people to be able to muster an effective resistance against a potentially corrupt future government.  It has the foresight to realize that said potentially corrupt future government could make it illegal for its citizens to have the weapons or tools they need to be able to fight it.


Hold up there a second, Quicksdraw!  There is a more to chat about.  Let's do it socratic-ly!
Me - narrator
Q - Quicksdraw the gun advocate

Ready..... GO!:

me: What about knives?
Q:  Shoot what now?
me: Why are knives insufficient to protect ourselves from a corrupt government?
Q:  Are you seriously bringing a knife to a gun debate?

me: I know it sounds stupid... the Socratic method almost always sounds stupid at first... but the hope is to sound really smart at the end... I mean find the truth together via discourse.  These dumb questions help draw out the real crux of the issue... like in this case I think we both can agree that guns defeat knives, right?!
Q:  No shit.
me: And that if the government has guns and the militia only has knives then the militia isn't really going to be able to mount an effective resistance.
Q:  Still no shit... which is why we need our guns to be safe and....
me: So what if the government has a weapon(or weapons) that is so powerful that it makes all the civilian guns that you love so much look as wimpy as knives... or maybe even as wimpy as feathers?
Q:  You mean like artillery, missiles, and tanks?
me: I wasn't thinking about those but technically that is a good point... the founding fathers didn't know about these massively destructive type weapons when they inked the 2nd amendment... but in the spirit of being able to compete with the government's army surely they would want the people's militia to be able to compete... which would mean that the people should be able to have equivalent weaponry... tanks, missiles, artillery.
Q:  I'm starting to like this Socratic method stuff... tanks a bunch... I'ma get mah missile on now...
me:  Yeah... I think I'm doing it wrong... because based on our current reasoning the people should be allowed to have nuclear weapons, access to spy satellite information (because that provides tactical military advantage)... this is getting scary.
Q:  Son you are crazier than I am... I mean... you are crazy whereas I am completely sane and rational and no co-opted by special interest groups in any way... point is... nuclear weapons? People can't have nuclear weapons that is way too dangerous.
me:  Why not? This potentially corrupt government has nuclear weapons... how are we the people supposed to fight that with our meager tanks, non-nuclear missiles, artillery, navy and air force?
Q: We got an air force now?
me: and submarines... but we really need those nukes to compete.  I mean freedom isn't free am I right?  Despite to fact that is starts with the word free... the "dom" must be like a negating operator or something.
Q: Hell no! The last thing freedom is is free! We need those nukes!
me: But as great as all those weapons are... we still don't stand a chance against the Orbital Mind Control Lasers.
Q:  We can nuke em... wait those aren't even a real thing!
me:  Okay you got me there... but if they were real you might have a trouble nuking everything in sight if you got hit with those lasers first...
Q:  I'm pretty sure I'm immune because I know my own mind and no one can control my mind and if they even tried I'd just shoot out all the controlled parts of my brain and I'm sure I'd be fine...but lesser people than me might be affected and that could cause some serious issues with the revolution... but again they dont exist.  You cant control people's minds that science fiction mumbo jumbo.
me: Right... but propaganda is a well known and now finely honed weapon in the government's psychological war chest.. and that is kind of the equivalent.  If there is enough confusion and dissension then a modern militia could not reasonably coalesce without seeming like a crazy fringe threat anyways so the incumbent government wins by default. 
Q: ...sorry cant hear you over all the nuclear testing I'm doing over here.  Lets just agree to disagree and since I now have nukes that means you agree with me or die. How you like that method?
me:  But you don't actually have nukes...
Q: K THX BYE!!!!

That needs a little fine tuning... but the ultimate point is that guns are insufficient to enable the people to do what the 2nd amendment attempts to allow: the ability replace a corrupt government

I argue there are many better ways to protect the spirit of the 2nd amendment better:

Off the cuff ideas:
make psychological attacks illegal - the advertisement industry needs to be completely revamped. they have had free reign on our minds for way too long.
treating other sentient beings with respect - sentient beings tentatively defined as anything that can learn.
transparency where possible
Reduce fear and anger levels...
...I'm out of time.

Mon, Apr. 15th, 2013 10:39 pm (UTC)

And this is one of the many reasons you're awesome. :-)