The ‘Insurrectionist’ Argument

TPM Reader MV says don’t dismiss it entirely …

Just wanted to weigh in on the “Red Dawn” fantasy part of the debate. For me, that’s actually the only pro-gun argument that resonates. No, it’s not something that could happen anytime in the near future, and no, citizens with assault rifles (or any other guns) aren’t going to win an all-out war against any modern developed country’s military. What guns do however, is basically guarantee bloodshed if the government ever does take a hard turn to tyranny. That bloodshed is itself a significant deterrent, even if its the revolters’ blood. Just as Tienanmen Square is still a very sensitive issue with the Chinese government, any major bloodshed event is a big deal for a would-be tyrant.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m rather liberal, mostly pro-government, and generally for any and all gun control measures discussed. But, for me, if I had a choice to eliminate the 2nd amendment or not, the only reason I’d want to keep it is for the long-long-long term protection against the ultimate government corruption. It seems to me that any country that wants to succeed over the long run needs to have the strongest possible protections against tyranny. This IS part of what our country was founded on, and it is an important factor.

I just don’t like seeing multiple posts totally dismissing this part of the issue, just because it happens to fit into the paranoid delusions of some gun advocates.

Masthead Masthead
Editor & Publisher:
Managing Editor:
Senior News Editor:
Assistant Editor:
Editor at Large:
Investigations Desk:
Senior Political Correspondent:
Senior Editor:
Front Page Editor:
Editor for Prime & Special Projects:
General Manager & General Counsel:
Executive Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Publishing Associate:
Front-End Developer:
Senior Designer: