Are you a liberal, Democrat or Independent who believes that the 2nd. Amendment should only exist for outdoor sports? It is a common refrain among gun control supporters that they see no reason for weapons of war to be in the civilian space, but that they have no issue with the recreational enjoyment of firearms. If you fall into this category, I would challenge you to think again.
The 2nd. Amendment was never intended for recreation. It was meant as a last chance insurance policy against tyranny. This is clearly defined in the Federalist Papers, and indeed it is reiterated by several of the founding fathers on multiple occasions.
Unlike your rightwing counterparts, you do not seem to believe that any tyranny worthy of rebellion could ever come to this country. But….
- WHAT IF…. a person who encouraged the criminal justice system to abuse suspects or even arbitrarily kill them were elected president?
- WHAT IF… a person who thought it was ok to torture people were elected president?
- WHAT IF…. a person who would seek to monitor, harass and eventually persecute certain groups of Americans based on race or religion were elected president?
- WHAT IF… a person who believed that the LGBT community was not worthy of equal rights were elected president?
- WHAT IF… a person who sought to marginalize, harass and eventually persecute a free press were elected president?
- WHAT IF … a person who displayed authoritarian impulses time and time again were elected president?
- AND WHAT IF… the only reason that person elected president had not gone much further was because institutions constrained him or her?
- BUT WHAT IF… those institutions failed or became corrupted?
OBVIOULSY, this is all so hypothetical, but… just in case, how do you propose to fight back? Hold hands, blow bubbles and sing kumbaya? Hardly a good plan for people who plan to remain free.
And I know what you’re thinking. “How could armed citizens stand against the military might of the US government? That’s ridiculous!” But is it? Why don’t you ask how the Vietnamese did against the French and then the Americans, or the Afghanis against the British, then the Russians, and now the Americans, or how about the Iraqis against the Americans? The list of armed civilians defending themselves against much more powerful militaries is long. And at least at the beginning, all they had were relatively comparable small arms. Of course, in such a scenario it is quite likely that a good portion of the military and law enforcement eventually defects and fights for freedom with you, bringing their resources with them, but you do need kindling to start a fire.
As this blog has written before, common sense gun safety measures are perfectly reasonable and 2nd. Amendment absolutism is asinine. However, it would be unreasonable to give up the intent of the 2nd. Amendment. No, it does not exist for hunting or recreation. It exists to defend freedom, your freedom too.