My parents were born in 1944 and 1952, in Hungary. For those not familiar, Hungary was emerging, destroyed, out of WW2 and was pretty much immediately taken under Soviet control. The population was progressively subdued and thrust into a communist system. Frustrations peaked in 1956 when a brief revolution was attempted. Predictably, the overpowering might of the Soviet occupying forces crushed it in short order. People who were protesting peacefully were shot. Anyone attributed with leadership roles was executed. One can argue that the revolution was short and relatively few people died only because the population did not have guns. The spirit to fight was there. The weaponry did not.
So what if my parents (or really, my grandparents) and their friends had guns? Lots and lots of guns? I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be here right now. In case it's not clear, because they wouldn't have lived through 1956. While Freddie Mercury wondered out loud if he'd have preferred not to have been born at all, I prefer existing.
The point here is that supporting guns because the 2nd amendment says so seems an outdated stance. First, we made that rule for ourselves and it can be changed. It's not a commandment to Moses. Second, it was written to allow states to defend themselves from a tyrannical government. At the time of writing, the weapons playing field was relatively level. The army came with guns and some cannons. The population defended itself with similar guns (though probably no cannons). Today the population has guns whereas the army has grenades, bombs, tanks, cannons, airplanes, night-vision, body armor, ... Defending ourselves from an organized, modern army is just not a thing that will happen.
So what if my parents (or really, my grandparents) and their friends had guns? Lots and lots of guns? I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be here right now. In case it's not clear, because they wouldn't have lived through 1956. While Freddie Mercury wondered out loud if he'd have preferred not to have been born at all, I prefer existing.
The point here is that supporting guns because the 2nd amendment says so seems an outdated stance. First, we made that rule for ourselves and it can be changed. It's not a commandment to Moses. Second, it was written to allow states to defend themselves from a tyrannical government. At the time of writing, the weapons playing field was relatively level. The army came with guns and some cannons. The population defended itself with similar guns (though probably no cannons). Today the population has guns whereas the army has grenades, bombs, tanks, cannons, airplanes, night-vision, body armor, ... Defending ourselves from an organized, modern army is just not a thing that will happen.
No comments:
Post a Comment