Often an argument for “Second Amendment rights,” especially for arms NOT used for hunting, is that they are necessary to fight off possible tyranny. Goodness knows we’ve known tyranny of one sort or other for eons. Why no progress against tyranny with our tons of guns? Come on, think all the way through this argument!
First, what is tyranny? For example, some consider corporate rule over our elected officials’ decisions ($$$) as tyranny. If one can accept that, as I do, guns will do nothing to counteract that form of injustice, should we truly understand and care.
The concrete, physical, “guns” is always an easy idea to swallow. But follow the logic deeper. Look past the simplistic “physical” appeal, however, and we see that such pure prowess has severe limits. Note Egypt, Tunisia, Poland, India, and other largely non-violent (by protesters) movements; also civil rights in the U.S.A., apartheid in South Africa, actions that worked relatively quickly, although some of these revolutions have just begun and are complex. There were also years of preparation and education of the people, little by little. These people know that guns are not the smart, long-lasting way.
Even if you think that our government is tyrannical, how have your weapons altered that? Hollow rhetoric for a momentary feel-good power high is not a solution. A need for simple black-and-white thinking will hook some with a false sense of security. That’s cheap thinking that doesn’t scratch the surface of issues.
Conflicts always end up at the negotiations table, after millions of deaths for nothing; why not start sooner at tough diplomatic negotiations? But that calls for thinkers and leaders of a better sort.
Only non-violent masses in the streets will let the powers see that we know better. We also need millions of really smart voters.
The specious argument against tyranny is an emotional ruse, a non-thinking excuse to have massive quantities of guns, whose purpose is mainly to kill people. And then what? Explain that to us, please. Power for the powerless?
If gun owners were truly against “tyranny” we wouldn’t have any more political, social, economic, religious or (non) intellectual tyranny as there are enough weapons to kill us all, yet they do nothing to deter corruption of the above areas in our sick human society. They mostly add a lot of human misery compared to any so-called benefits.
The tyranny argument just doesn’t make sense, except as hollow words.