Guns
So I’ve been thinking a little about it …
And I’m very conflicted about firearms in general.
Ok. I know a lot of violent crime would be a lot harder to perpetrate without the existence of guns, but then outlawing the sales of firearms to public citizens (as opposed to the police, military, etc) wouldn’t really solve the problem of criminals — at least, in the short term. It’s just open the doors for a firearms black market.
But, disregarding the argument “criminals will have them anyway”, what purpose do guns serve?
Ok, there’s hunting enthusiasts, who like shooting animals. And God forbid they be put in check. I know hunters who’d go loopy if they ever had to give up hunting for a year (like George). But hunters don’t need handguns, and you can’t conceal a rifle or a shotgun very well (unless it’s a sawed-off shotgun, that is).
What about other purposes of guns?
The reason we have a right-to-bear-arms amendment is that our country was founded on the principle of self-defense. In frontier America, you had to defend your hometown from the Brits, and the French, and those damned savages that … well … that weren’t much of a problem. But anyway, this nation was founded on a violent uprising, an overthrowing of the old government and an establishment of a new.
But, BUT, in the frontier days, everybody was raised tough. Everyone knew how to live off the land … that’s what they HAD to do. Everyone could hunt, and fish, and till fields. In the modern world, if we were given the same tools and situations as our forefathers had, I bet 95% of us would die within the month, not knowing how to start a fire or keep it going, or get food or prepare it, or construct a shelter.
More to the point, these hardy frontier people lived hard lives that made them as tough as, or tougher than, the average soldier. They were good shots. They were creative, crafty, and wise to how to essentially become one with the land they were in.
In other words, the difference between a British soldier and an American Frontiersman was about a month of training and a brightly colored coat. Moreover, there were no tanks or bombs, no machine guns, none of that stuff. Everyone was similarly armed, with what amounted to muskets. Crude devices designed to hurl a blob of lead in the general direction of someone or something.
A surmountable gap, I’d say.
But with modern warfare, the difference between the people and the military has become insurmountable. Tienanmen Square showed us the fightful difference between an average citizen and an average soldier: an average citizen is on foot, with rocks and sticks, maybe a handgun. the average modern American soldier is armed with an arsenal ranging from hand grenades, mobile artillery, machine guns, rifles, pistols, night vision goggles, not to mention tanks and armored transport vehicles. A squad of a dozen soldiers, if freed of the concerns of protecting the innocent, could decimate a midsized city with their standard issue field gear. They’re all but immune to the vast majority of dangers that a city worth of people could bring to bear against them.
In other words, if the entire population of private citizens attacked the government in a violent uprising (thus attacking the military, as a consequence), and the military didn’t stand aside and let it happen but instead stepped in, there wouldn’t be a war. There would be a brutal slaughter of however many dozens or hundreds or thousands of people would need to die to quell the uprising.
Having the right to “bear arms” in the face of a modern superpower seems sort of … vestigal to me. I have the right, according to the constitution, to join the local militia (if one existed), and march on washington. But the moment I point a gun aat the white house, I’m dead. So what’s the point?
Beyond the scope of peaceful protest, we have no real recourse should the government turn on the people, save the fact that the military is itself drawn from the people, and would be difficult to turn against them.