Let’s start with the Second Amendment...for the record, here is the full text of that:
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.
In MY opinion, this amendment has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the “gun debate”, either in favor or against. Here’s why: IF the amendment stated simply, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”, it would be flatly and unequivocally a Constitutional right. But it doesn’t say that. It has those two modifying clauses in front. It seems abundantly clear to me, given the time and circumstances in which this was written, that the REASON the Founders had for legally guaranteeing the people the right to bear arms was so that, if necessary, ‘the people’ could rise up in armed revolt against their government and overthrow it. I think that was perfectly sensible at the time, although. even then, it was no cut and dried matter that such a revolt would be successful. After all, cannon had been around a long time by then, it seems obvious that the government, if it wanted, could and would have access to far more cannon than ‘the people’ either individually or in militias would have.
At the very least, by the time nuclear bombs were available, the ship had sailed as far as ‘the people’ being able to militarily resist their government, if the government was determined enough to put down any revolt. By NOW the notion of any successful armed revolt of ‘the people’ against the government is so far beyond absurd it is downright delusional. I very seriously doubt there is any other nation on this planet with ANY chance of defeating the US military machine. Rationally and realistically, there is zero chance of any 'citizens militia’ defeating even civilian law enforcement apparatus (local police, state police, FBI, etc.), never mind anything about the military.
I remember when I first encountered the word ‘freethinker” and found the definition of it given by the FFRF: free-think-er n. A person who forms opinions about religion on the basis of reason, independently of tradition, authority, or established belief. As a newly minted atheist/freethinker, I embraced this, though there was that niggling thing in the back of my mind that we should be able to remove the “about religion” part to make the whole idea of freely thinking much broader. Sadly, it didn’t take long to find out that many “freethinkers” had interest ONLY in the term as it applied to religion, but not in any other aspect of life. Though I am aware of several atheist and non-religious folk who have a more reasonable view of the “gun debate”, I find it a bit alarming that the majority seem as mired in mindless social dogma on that issue as the “religious nuts” they so excoriate about religious beliefs. One notable exception is Sam Harris.
I find it troubling that so many of the same people who rightly point out many of the ridiculous claims and arguments made in favor of God-belief and religion, cannot seem to see that many of THEIR claims and arguments in the “gun debate” are just as ridiculous and without merit. As Sam Harris puts it in his article The Riddle of the Gun, “I am surrounded by otherwise intelligent people who imagine that the ability to dial 911 is all the protection against violence a sane person ever needs.” I am not in lockstep agreement with Sam Harris, or anyone else, on atheism, guns, or anything else, but so far, I find his arguments on these issues in general remarkably cogent and reasoned.
The issues of guns and gun control are the only ones I know of which have so many of the arguments ad absurdum so often found in religions.
I encourage you to read Sam Harris’s The Riddle Of The Gun, a more eloquent treatment of the issue than mine, from a nationally known liberal atheist...not a “religious gun nut”.
TRB
No comments:
Post a Comment