It gets old, sometimes, here in Oklahoma, the land of my birth, and the reddest of red states (though perhaps Arizona is trying to give us a run for our money). The incessantly shrill cries of the anti-Obama types does wear on the nerves.
Oh, don't get me wrong; I'm no Obama supporter--far from it. I voted for McCain in '08, and didn't vote for either candidate for president in 2012, as I felt that neither of them deserved my vote. And here in Oklahoma, the Republican Party is apparently so fearful of 'alternative' candidates that they managed to keep every other presidential candidate off our ballots in '12.
The Tea Party types and the strict constitutionalists (usually one and the same) insist that the 2nd Amendment gives them the right to keep and bear arms in order to violently oppose a potentially tyrannical government, in much the same way as our 'Founding Fathers' did in the American Revolution. (Or, as they usually fail to point out, the same way as the Confederate States of America TRIED to do, four score and seven (or so) years later.)
And, in one respect, I will grant that they do have a point. At the time the 2nd Amendment was written, that was almost certainly the case. And at that time, a sufficiently organized 'militia' could have, possibly, successfully removed a tyrant's yoke from their necks.
But in case one hasn't been paying attention to military matters over the past 220 years, things have changed. The flintlock smoothbore musket is no longer the state of the art. Muzzle-loading horse-drawn cannons have also gone away. And pretty much no one still uses the long 'pig-sticker' bayonet anymore, nor do they do anywhere near as much drill with the bayonet as armies once did.
And, by the way, there have been certain advances in military technology. Like the percussion cap. Like breach-loading rifles firing cartridge ammunition. Like repeating firearms. Like belt-fed, crew-served machine guns, and sub-machine guns, and assault rifles. Automatic pistols. Dedicated sniper weapons. Rocket-propelled grenades. Chemical weapons. Bombers and ground-attack aircraft. Helicopter gunships. Guided missiles and laser-guided bombs. High-altitude bombing. Indirect-fire artillery. Night-vision devices--not just the old 'starlight' image-intensification types, but the full thermal imaging ones. Unjammable radios. Digital data networks. Radar, including types that map everything on the ground--and can track everything that moves. Fully autonomous missiles. And now drones.
OK, let's go all-out, and let's say you have a Barrett .50-BMG sniper rifle. It's a big, bad, beautiful, heavy-duty, 'reach out and touch someone' rifle, with a muzzle brake and everything. Massive kick too. And let's say that you and your buddies are not about to sign up for Obamacare and are gonna go show them gummint men where they can go with their 'mandate'.
Yeah, you might get one or two of them. If there's a bunch of you that can afford a $4300+ weapon and $3.50/$4.00 a round for ammo, you might get a few more. But then what?
Assuming you and your buddies are deemed an actual military threat rather than just a bunch of nastier-than-normal criminals (probably a rather large hurdle to overcome), and the United States Army comes after you, what are your plans then? They can track you and you'll never even know it. You don't have the manpower, you don't have the technology, you don't have the logistics backup, and you almost certainly don't have the discipline necessary to withstand an army whose last defeat was at Kasserine Pass in 1943 (well, you could make a good argument for Chosin Reservoir in 1950, but US forces did manage to break out of the encirclement and withdrew mostly intact).
Even if--IF--you managed to do enough damage to attract actual military attention, you will not survive. Your cause will not survive. Want another example? Desert Storm, Battle of 73 Easting (look it up). US tanks engaged Iraqi Republican Guard troops riding into battle in BMP infantry fighting vehicles and knocked them out. Survivors from those BMPs jumped out of their burning vehicles, and began to charge, on foot, the American tanks--3000 meters distant . . . firing their AKs at the tanks. Full points for bravery, but none whatsoever for common sense. The US tank crews didn't know what to make of them at first; clearly these Iraqis weren't in the mood to surrender just yet, but they also didn't pose a threat to them, at least not until they'd run better than 2500 meters. So they called artillery on them, and wiped them out.
To make it clear, advances in military technology have rendered the 2nd Amendment, as a sort of final check and balance against a tyrannical government, obsolete. Oh, you can talk about personal protection against criminals, and certainly that's still valid. Or just as an expression of freedom--just as valid. But as a check against an 'evil government' led by 'the prince of fools'--you're dangerously self-delusional, and if you ever try it, you'll die a fool's death.
BUT--having said all that, the concept of their needing to be an additional check on government power is just as valid as it was 225 years ago, when the Constitution was first adopted. It's just that the mechanism for this, provided in the 2nd Amendment, is no longer functional.
This check that the 2nd Amendment USED TO provide is still needed, and always will be needed, as a check on government power. It's just that we need a new mechanism to provide this essential check.
Well . . . what could that possibly be? (And you can keep your 2nd Amendment as-is . . . it's not harmful; it just doesn't work for what it was intended any more.)
I don't know.
But I do know something that would be a good start in that direction, of providing a check on government power. The right to recall.
Only a few states have the right to recall elected officials, and even in those states, it only applies to state- and local-level officials. No federal-level right to recall exists. But it should.
For those who may be a little unfamiliar with the term, here's how Wikipedia defines it:
This in and of itself may not provide a sufficiently robust mechanism to replace the inoperative one in the 2nd Amendment; I'm no constitutional theorist. But it would undoubtedly help. And, better yet, would help to restore some sanity to political discourse in this country.
Oh, don't get me wrong; I'm no Obama supporter--far from it. I voted for McCain in '08, and didn't vote for either candidate for president in 2012, as I felt that neither of them deserved my vote. And here in Oklahoma, the Republican Party is apparently so fearful of 'alternative' candidates that they managed to keep every other presidential candidate off our ballots in '12.
(For that matter, we Okies have always had a soft spot for underdogs and lost causes. But there is perhaps no cause so lost and forlorn as that of the Democratic Party in Oklahoma. Which really is unfortunate, and such a huge reversal of politics from the Great Depression/Dust Bowl days. But I digress.)
And, in one respect, I will grant that they do have a point. At the time the 2nd Amendment was written, that was almost certainly the case. And at that time, a sufficiently organized 'militia' could have, possibly, successfully removed a tyrant's yoke from their necks.
But in case one hasn't been paying attention to military matters over the past 220 years, things have changed. The flintlock smoothbore musket is no longer the state of the art. Muzzle-loading horse-drawn cannons have also gone away. And pretty much no one still uses the long 'pig-sticker' bayonet anymore, nor do they do anywhere near as much drill with the bayonet as armies once did.
And, by the way, there have been certain advances in military technology. Like the percussion cap. Like breach-loading rifles firing cartridge ammunition. Like repeating firearms. Like belt-fed, crew-served machine guns, and sub-machine guns, and assault rifles. Automatic pistols. Dedicated sniper weapons. Rocket-propelled grenades. Chemical weapons. Bombers and ground-attack aircraft. Helicopter gunships. Guided missiles and laser-guided bombs. High-altitude bombing. Indirect-fire artillery. Night-vision devices--not just the old 'starlight' image-intensification types, but the full thermal imaging ones. Unjammable radios. Digital data networks. Radar, including types that map everything on the ground--and can track everything that moves. Fully autonomous missiles. And now drones.
OK, let's go all-out, and let's say you have a Barrett .50-BMG sniper rifle. It's a big, bad, beautiful, heavy-duty, 'reach out and touch someone' rifle, with a muzzle brake and everything. Massive kick too. And let's say that you and your buddies are not about to sign up for Obamacare and are gonna go show them gummint men where they can go with their 'mandate'.
Yeah, you might get one or two of them. If there's a bunch of you that can afford a $4300+ weapon and $3.50/$4.00 a round for ammo, you might get a few more. But then what?
Assuming you and your buddies are deemed an actual military threat rather than just a bunch of nastier-than-normal criminals (probably a rather large hurdle to overcome), and the United States Army comes after you, what are your plans then? They can track you and you'll never even know it. You don't have the manpower, you don't have the technology, you don't have the logistics backup, and you almost certainly don't have the discipline necessary to withstand an army whose last defeat was at Kasserine Pass in 1943 (well, you could make a good argument for Chosin Reservoir in 1950, but US forces did manage to break out of the encirclement and withdrew mostly intact).
Even if--IF--you managed to do enough damage to attract actual military attention, you will not survive. Your cause will not survive. Want another example? Desert Storm, Battle of 73 Easting (look it up). US tanks engaged Iraqi Republican Guard troops riding into battle in BMP infantry fighting vehicles and knocked them out. Survivors from those BMPs jumped out of their burning vehicles, and began to charge, on foot, the American tanks--3000 meters distant . . . firing their AKs at the tanks. Full points for bravery, but none whatsoever for common sense. The US tank crews didn't know what to make of them at first; clearly these Iraqis weren't in the mood to surrender just yet, but they also didn't pose a threat to them, at least not until they'd run better than 2500 meters. So they called artillery on them, and wiped them out.
To make it clear, advances in military technology have rendered the 2nd Amendment, as a sort of final check and balance against a tyrannical government, obsolete. Oh, you can talk about personal protection against criminals, and certainly that's still valid. Or just as an expression of freedom--just as valid. But as a check against an 'evil government' led by 'the prince of fools'--you're dangerously self-delusional, and if you ever try it, you'll die a fool's death.
BUT--having said all that, the concept of their needing to be an additional check on government power is just as valid as it was 225 years ago, when the Constitution was first adopted. It's just that the mechanism for this, provided in the 2nd Amendment, is no longer functional.
This check that the 2nd Amendment USED TO provide is still needed, and always will be needed, as a check on government power. It's just that we need a new mechanism to provide this essential check.
Well . . . what could that possibly be? (And you can keep your 2nd Amendment as-is . . . it's not harmful; it just doesn't work for what it was intended any more.)
I don't know.
But I do know something that would be a good start in that direction, of providing a check on government power. The right to recall.
Only a few states have the right to recall elected officials, and even in those states, it only applies to state- and local-level officials. No federal-level right to recall exists. But it should.
For those who may be a little unfamiliar with the term, here's how Wikipedia defines it:
It gives the people the power to remove an elected official from office WITHOUT HAVING TO ASSASSINATE THEM OR OTHERWISE ENGAGE IN ARMED CONFLICT. No violence required.
"A recall election (also called a recall referendum or representative recall) is a procedure by which voters can remove an elected official from office through a direct vote before his or her term has ended. Recalls, which are initiated when sufficient voters sign a petition, have a history dating back to the ancient Athenian democracy and are a feature of several contemporary constitutions."
This in and of itself may not provide a sufficiently robust mechanism to replace the inoperative one in the 2nd Amendment; I'm no constitutional theorist. But it would undoubtedly help. And, better yet, would help to restore some sanity to political discourse in this country.
No comments:
Post a Comment