Why the 'Citizen Militia' Theory Is the Worst Pro-Gun Argument Ever

[Drale]

The notion that an individual right to bear arms guarantees the American people against government tyranny is of course an old one. Given its apparent validation in the Second Amendment of the Constitution itself, it's not surprising that the notion has survived in some way through to the 21st century. Given its defiance of history and common sense, though, what should be surprising is that its survived to remain so widespread.

If America experienced a widespread political uprising today, it would bear little resemblance to Lexington and Concord in 1775, with well-disciplined minutemen assembling on the town square to defend liberty against the redcoats. It would more likely be a larger scale reenactment of the "Bleeding Kansas" revolt of 1854 to 1861, when small bands of armed zealots unleashed an orgy of inter-communal violence, unbounded by any laws of war or human decency.

There is, we all know, a Second Amendment right to gun ownership. Under our constitutional form of government, the Supreme Court has the authority to decide what the Constitution means, and after decades of judicial ambiguity, in District of Columbia v. Heller a majority of the justices found an individual right to gun ownership, unrelated to membership in a state militia. But the Heller decision also makes it clear that this is not an unlimited right, and that it may be subject to extensive government regulation.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/01/why-the-citizen-militia-theory-is-the-worst-pro-gun-argument-ever/272734/

If I were to ever own a gun, it would not be because I'm afraid of the government or someone breaking into my home, it would be because I am afraid of the crazy fundamentalists and political extremists around me. They are the most dangerous thing our country, our democracy and we as humans have to face. Someone breaks into my house, they can have my stuff, its only stuff but someone tries to kill me or my family because we support homosexuals or because we are liberals thats something that can not stand unchecked without fighting back.

[slackmaster]

1. It's a canard used by people on the extremes of both sides to promote their extremist agendas

I use my Ruger 10/22 and Smith & Wesson .38 revolver for recreational shooting, which is my right.

[Drale]

2. Really both extremes?

Maybe in the past but whens the last time you heard a socialist or full-on-board communist say they were going to kill the head of a bank or a priest who preforms baptisms? Never but we hear all the time the right threatening Democratic Government officials and Doctors who provide abortion services and/or the women who seek those services. It is not both sides, its one side the right.

[slackmaster]

3. I'm talking about the gun opponents who insist that the main motivation for we who are pro-choice...

...on guns is to be able to overthrow the government. That's simply not true for most of us; therefore I have labelled it a canard.

[Drale]

4. Ok I guess I didn't understand you post

but that small number of people can do great damage with the crazy powerful weapon that they can currently buy legally. Now most of them probably will never do anything but in my opinion even one person killed by one of these people is unforgivable because we could have stopped it with a combination of banning certain weapons and increased mental health funding and screening for Americans.

[TlalocW]

5. My thoughts

First I believe in the right to own guns. I don't believe it's a right without limits though. Secondly, for points 1 and 2, keep in mind that violent crime has decreasing for the last 2 decades. The school shootings and other events, as tragic as they are, don't happen often enough to reverse the violent crime stats, but something still needs to be done about them. That said.

1. I think we can all agree that media violence - TV, movies, video games, etc. - at any moment is pretty much at an all time high and is increasing all the time. So even though it has increased, violent crime stats have not. There's no smoking gun there. One conservative talking point done away with.
2. Along with decreasing violent crime, gun ownership has also declined from a max of over 60% when they started tracking stuff like this to just over 30% now. Both sides have their anecdotal evidence and stats that they can point to, etc., but based on those two pieces of info, we can say that safety is not related to an increased number of guns.
3. You're not the militia just because you own a gun, and the Supreme Court has said so, fairly recently in 2008. They also said that the 2nd Amendment does confer the right to own guns on ordinary citizens, but restrictions can be placed on it. This was a decision from a very conservative Supreme Court, so the concept of restrictions is not a liberal power grab.
4. It is incredibly unlikely even with Obama's Kenyan magic voodoo mind control powers that the US military, overwhelmingly made up conservative men and women who favor 2nd Amendment Rights could be convinced to "come fer our guns." It also just as unlikely that just because you own a gun and mistakenly believe you're the militia would be able to repel them if they did. Both are fantasies. And related...
5. I don't think relying on gun owners to protect us from the government is a good idea because
5a. There are certain relatively recent events, Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc. that gun owners point to as government intrusions (related to grabbing guns) where whether or not the actions were justified, the outcomes of who rolled over whom are not in doubt.
5b. There was plenty of time for any citizen militias in both cases to show up and fight against the government. Also, during the Bush years, many of rights - speech, habeas corpus, privacy - were severely curtailed, and once again no right-wing, gun-centered citizen militias fighting the government over our rights (in fact, many of them were cheering the abuses of the Bush years). They have a record of not showing up to fight even when they feel 2nd Amendment Rights are being trampled upon so why should we believe they would do so in the future?

So the problem is that it's too easy for a crazy person - or just an angry person - to go out and get a gun whose sole purpose is to kill multiple people very quickly. The NRA and its whining execs and their "reasoning" need to be ignored, and these guns need to be made harder to get a hold of, and clips need to hold fewer bullets.

TlalocW