If I wanted to troll in this thread there are far
far easier ways to do it.
I bring this question up each time because it's a question that needs looking at by Americans.
Let's look at the Amendment itself, adopted in 1791 when the average weaponry was musket, cannon and sword.
Quote:
|
"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."
|
That's fair enough, and given the experiences of the young American republic at the time, it's perfectly understandable and indeed sensible that it would want to provide its citizens with the means to defend themselves against both foreign and domestic invasion.
However, what is a well regulated militia and does the average Hank with a colt .45 constitute one?
That aside, one must also take into account the vast increase of technology between 1795 and 2014, the founding fathers could not have, in their wildest dreams, imagined some of the weaponry we take for granted in todays world, nor can we imagine the weaponry that will be available to the US government in the future to come. As technology increases in complexity and capability pretty soon a single man will be able to control squadrons of drones, and use them to destroy scores of people whilst outside of their ability to respond.
Goldenrivet has already pointed out the biggest lynchpin in the Second Amendment in the 21st century, it is assumed that the US Armed Forces would, in any tyrannical US government, splinter and help the citizens. However, to assume is a dangerous endeavour and not always guaranteed. The example of the Nazis has already been used in this thread, and yet I don't recall the armed forces of Germany intervening en masse when it came to the rounding up of the Jews and other undesirables, likewise the armed forces of Russia and the Soviet Union, or indeed many many other nations whose armed forces have been quite complicit in crimes against their own citizens.
"But America is different!" I hear you cry, but is it really? Already we have seen the mass militarization of the police as weaponry from the 'War on Terror' is handed down in the name of national security, and these same weapons used on those protesting in US cities.
"But they're criminals and looters!" I hear you reply...and I'm sure that's exactly how you would be portrayed by the government and media if you turned against a tyrannical state.
Remember Goerings quote?
Quote:
|
Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
|
This was mainly addressed towards external wars, but the same can be said of internal ones, to be honest. Anyone who is deemed by the government to be dangerous to the state has a whole army of media turned against them before a single shot is fired, and in the minds of the people who harvest this media they are already put on trial, judged and executed.
Right now, the main culprits are Muslim extremists, once it was communists, and before that the Japanese. All forces that were and have been portrayed as looking to attack and destroy America from outside and from within. All a government would need to do is to frame a set subframe of people for an attack and mobilise public support for action against them.
It's not as if such things haven't been
proposed (and thankfully dismissed) before.
So I really wouldn't rest so assuredly in a tyrannical government actually portraying itself as tyrannical, or the armed forces being on the side of someone fighting against it. Likewise in an era where automated computerised weapons systems are becoming more and more commonplace, I wouldn't put as much faith in a citizen militia being able to be as effective as it was in 1792.
Food for thought.