(no title)
iamnotlarry | 8 years ago
A lot of the gun supporters live in rural America and only experience the types of threats related here when watching Hollywood productions. Everybody these days is feeling the threat of all the mass shootings, but very few in rural America have been personally touched by them. They also haven't really experienced gang violence, home invasion, mugging, etc. We all know those things happen, and some feel some distant anxiety about them. But most in rural America have not experiences them except through news reports.
Yet, gun support is strongest in rural America. Some point to hunting. Some will talk about self-defense. Many are just enthusiasts who like to target-shoot for enjoyment. Some feel some nationalistic pull to defend against Germany^H^HRussia^H^HChina^H^HNorth Korea^H^H or whoever is the latest poster child threat to the American Way. And some think that from the very beginning of America, there has been one constant threat--the one threat the founders new first-hand and the reason for the right to bear arms.
It seems like terrorism to actually say it, but for some the main reason to bear arms is to be able to rebel against tyranny--foreign and especially domestic. In other words, it's important for people to be able to occupy a wildlife refuge and "take it back" from the government. Taken to the extreme, this right is for the express purpose to allow civilians to kill policemen and military personnel in a pitched battle. It's not really about hunting or defense against home invasion. It's about an armed citizenry to keep the government in check.
That's a part of "gun culture" with which the author may not be able to relate. That's very scary to a lot of people. And to some that thinking is no longer needed to keep people safe in the modern world. But to some, it's absolutely vital to the preservation of the Constitution.
You may not agree with it. The author of this article may not agree with it either. But it just goes to show that there is not one true gun culture. There are different reasons to oppose guns and different reasons to support them.
zimpenfish|8 years ago
Which made sense 200 years ago. Today, against a government armed with reaper drones et al, a populace armed with AR-15s would last about an hour if the government really wanted to put them down.
tntn|8 years ago
If such a conflict were to ever happen (and let us pray that it doesn't), I feel that it would be quite a bit more complicated than "government brings out the big guns, game over," for several reasons:
1. This ignores the historical track record of the US military in asymmetric warfare, fighting determined foes with inferior equipment and weaponry. I'm thinking of Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Not perfect comparisons, but worth some thought.
2. It is likely that the US military would see significant desertion and insubordination in such a situation. Military personnel are people too, and many may be reluctant to go to war against their own country.
3. Every state has an Army National Guard and an Air National Guard, and many states has state defense forces. While the National Guard units are legally obligated to obey orders from the federal government, there is no guarantee of what would happen were there to actually be a domestic insurgency.
A populace armed with AR-15s may well be enough of a problem that the opposing force weakens its opposition and starts to fracture.
Again, let us all hope that nothing like this ever happens, but that shouldn't stop us from analyzing in more detail what might happen.
krapp|8 years ago
It is. Let's just call a spade a spade here.. that interpretation of the Second Amendment endorses and justifies domestic terrorism. "Tyranny" can mean anything from an oppressive totalitarian state to the dehumanization of modern technological society to the existence of the IRS to too many foreigners in your neighborhood - or, of course, gun control itself. Tyranny is in the eye of the beholder.
megaman22|8 years ago