Great Gun Gobbledygook: The Paradox of Second Amendment Hardliners

[Redfairen]

In the current debate over gun control, the pro-gun lobby has an ace card up its sleeve: We need weapons to prevent government tyranny, they say. These self-styled champions of liberty see guns as the ultimate insurance policy to protect the Constitution. The problem is that most of those making this argument also strongly support a massive U.S. military -- exactly the behemoth we must be armed against. It's the great gun gobbledygook.

Consider Marco Rubio. The senator just threatened to filibuster any gun-control legislation because the Second Amendment "speaks to history's lesson that government cannot be in all places at all times, and history's warning about the oppression of a government that tries."

But curiously, Rubio also strongly supports beefing up government power by creating a vast military establishment. In 2012, he described defense cuts as "catastrophic" because "history has proven that the stronger the U.S. military is, the more peaceful the world becomes." According to Politico, in a recent speech at the University of Louisville, "Rubio made the case for American military might around the world."

Wait a sec, won't American military might mean a government that's in more places at more times? Isn't this precisely the terrifying prospect we must arm ourselves against?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/04/great-gun-gobbledygook-the-paradox-of-second-amendment-hardliners/274523/

[Scuba]

1. Huh, what? "... the stronger the U.S. military is, the more peaceful the world becomes."

Um, not in my experience.

[zipplewrath]

4. Depends how one measures

"More peaceful" can be defined several ways.

1) Total killed
2) Number of people living under dictators
3) Number of individual wars
4) Recent number of multi-national wars
5) Duration of existing wars


Depending upon what period one wants to define, 1, 2 and 4 are probably "down". 3, and 5 are probably "up". I say his mostly think of "post WWII". Of course then there are longer term trends where we have to be concerned about what our magnitude causes/influences other nations to do and prepare to do.

[Warpy]

2. They also think they can run the world solely on the backs of labor

which makes them exactly wrong in all areas. However, this is very dangerous because it's also very popular in some parts of the country, especially among men. The Pentagon will have to be cut slowly and very carefully or these guys are going to start to feel emasculated.

The cut to the Pentagon budget was the best part of the otherwise silly "sequester" idea that Phil Gramm inflicted on this country.

Rubio, I hope, will be increasingly seen as an anachronism, a Cold Warrior born 80 years too late. That's the best hope we have in making sure his horrible ideas don't come to fruition.

[maxsolomon]

3. When exactly do we know it's a tyranny that can be opposed with gunfire?

Might those killing DA's & Assistant DA's in Texas think that's exactly what they're doing?

[JoePhilly]

6. The Tea Party will let you know.

[zipplewrath]

5. The whole "reset button" is absurd

No revolution in the last 100 years has been fought with the weapons that citizens had on hand at the outbreak. Raiding armories and importing from arms merchants is typically how they are fought. If a government becomes that tyrannical, they won't particularly care about a second amendment.

[LiberalFighter]

7. That poses a conundrum. Which do they want?

Do they want a strong military which will make it difficult to overthrow the government by the grassroots/radicals?

Or do they want all the firearms they want so they can overthrow the government and kill the military?

They can't have both because it is not possible.