- The Second Amendment is a constitutional guarantee against tyrannical government overreach.
- The Second Amendment justifies armed, violent rebellion against the government when the government intrudes on the rights of its citizens.
- Those who engage in that armed, violent rebellion will be justified by their opposition to the previously mentioned tyrannical overreach.
I’ve heard a lot of talk about how guns are important because of the need for Americans to protect themselves from a tyrannical government…as if an individual carrying an AR-15 stands a chance against the military power possessed by the American government.
That obvious does of reality aside, this idea’s set me to thinking. What, exactly, constitutes “tyrannical government?” When is an American citizen justified in taking up arms against their government? The numerous (and vociferous) angry White Male gun nuts will discourse at some length (and considerable volume) about the need to be able to defend oneself against a tyrannical government run by “gun-grabbing Liberals”. As one of those “gun-grabbing Liberals,” I find that argument as humorous as it is vague. It’s like nailing Jello to a wall; no one can figure out a way to make it happen…but is sounds like a REALLY good idea.
Just what constitutes “tyrannical government?” The problem, at least from where I sit, here in my Liberal ivory tower, is that no one seems able to define what constitutes “tyrannical” in a manner that makes sense. As near as I can tell, “tyrannical” means “anything that I disagree with and offends my sensibilities.” That hardly seems a solid, defensible standard for rising up in armed rebellion against the government…especially since those doing the rebelling would be a small number more likely to be viewed by the general public as criminals, not patriots.
The question, then, isn’t whether we should regulate guns…the question is how, when you start shooting, we determine whether you’re a constitutionally justified patriot or Chris Dorner.
The tyrannical government argument rests on the assumption that everyone will know and understand when tyranny is occurring. Reading Dorner’s manifesto, it’s clear that he intends to strike out against the injustice and corruption he believes pervades the LAPD. One might even call it tyranny, if one were so inclined.
However, Dorner is a murderer, unjustified even by his legitimate grievances to take the lives of innocent people. Generally, that’s how these things go - angry anti-government types arm themselves against whatever set of grievances they have, and if and when they take action, their meticulous offense at tyranny is exposed as largely narcissistic rage.
When it comes to our Second Amendment patriots, when are we supposed to know that they’re not just Chris Dorner? Or Tim McVeigh? Or some backwoods militia rube who thinks he lost his job because of this year’s disfavored ethnic group? If your reason for arming yourself is your belief that the government either has or inevitably will transgress against your rights - and it’s always the rights of the individual - then the difference between the narcissism of that “patriot” and the narcissism of people we consider to be monsters is a matter of degree, rather than quality.
Most gun nut vitriol is largely narcissistic rage- How DARE anyone deny them what they want and believe they deserve? How DARE government tell them what weapons they can or cannot have? It’s not about the rule of law, at least insofar as it applies to them; it’s about their overarching narcissism, childish whining, and impotent rage.
If you believe that government will eventually and inevitably trample your rights, I’d submit that you need help. Going through life as a paranoid conspiracy theorist is a helluva to go through life. Carrying that much anger and rage isn’t healthy, and it can lead to some ugly and unfortunate outcomes.
You might also keep in mind that it’s not always about the rights of the individual. What YOU want isn’t ipso facto what reality by rights must be. Sometimes the common good and the interests and rights of the collective take precedence. That’s what the rule of law is about.
Timothy McVeigh and Christopher Dorner were not heroes, the arguments of those who consider them “patriots” aside. They were common, garden-variety murderers consumed by rage and anger. Rather than take responsibility for their lives, they played the victim card. Regardless of the “righteousness” of their cause, taking innocent human lives rendered their “cause” moot.
I’ve had people tell me that banning assault weapons is a good way to start a revolution. Really? If you’re so paranoid, so angry, so blinded by rage that you’d take up arms because of a law you disagree with, you’re little more than a common criminal, a murderer deserving of the consequences that will inevitably be visited upon you. You’re no patriot, and you’re hardly worthy as being held up as a martyr for the “cause.”
Those of you convinced that the government is coming for your guns have no business owning and using guns in the first place. You’re a threat to the safety and stability of this country and the vast majority of people in it. The sooner y’all recognize that, the safer all of us will be.
It’s not about you, and it never will be. Get over yourselves.
