In the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre and the ensuing debates, arguments, and frenzied screaming from all sides regarding gun laws in the U.S., I’ve seen a number of people say that the reason the 2nd Amendment is so important is that private citizens need to own firearms in case the government becomes a tyranny and we all have to rise up in revolution.
This raises a lot of questions for me. But the main one is this: at what point is armed revolution against the government justified?
Now, I come from a family of rebels and activists. My great-grandparents were Communists and Anarchists. My grandparents were labor organizers and supporters. My parents were involved in the Civil Rights Movement and counseled draft resisters during the American involvement in Vietnam. I was raised to question authority, to fight for what I believe in, and to engage in civil disobedience when necessary. (My great-aunt was arrested for protesting police brutality in New York City when she was in her 80s.) Casablanca is one of my favorite movies, and of course I always root for the French Resistance.
But still, I wonder…
When John Wilkes Booth assassinated President Lincoln, he shouted “Sic semper tyrannis!” (“Thus always to tyrants!”) from the stage of Ford’s Theatre. He clearly saw Lincoln as a tyrant who needed to be removed. Were his actions justified? Was he right to assassinate Lincoln? What about Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing? Was that a justified action? I think the George W. Bush administration’s actions and policies verged awfully close to fascism, so would I have been justified in legally purchasing arms and ammunition and striking out against the government? We’ve seen right wing rhetoric about Barack Obama being a “socialist dictator” (as laughable as that rhetoric is), so is taking arms against the current government justified?
Defenders of the 2nd Amendment love to quote Thomas Jefferson, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” And in theory, that’s all well and good. But at what point is violent revolution actually justified? If you truly think we need to legally arm ourselves to protect against a tyrannical government, what’s your definition of tyranny and what violence will you actually endorse and defend? How do you know you’ll recognize a tyrant, and what makes you think John Wilkes Booth or Timothy McVeigh didn’t recognize one? Or do you think they did and they were on the side of the angels? When we get away from the romantic notion of a popular revolution against a cruel tyrant (a romantic notion that I quite like, in fact) and get into the real business of arming ourselves against an oppressive government, whose blood do you imagine you’ll be spilling? When is the spilling of blood the right thing to do and when is it wrong?
If you can’t answer these questions–or if you can answer them without hesitating–then I think you have a lot of thinking to do. And I don’t want you armed while you’re thinking it over.
7 Comments
Josh as a liberal I love your questions and I will ponder them but as a gun owner I must confess that the only immediate response I have to your question are more questions. If we as a civilian population agreed for the greater good to give up all firearms what could we do if a tyrannical government who did not care about life as we do came to power? Given the level of destructive firepower at the governments hands and not in civilian hands (think rockets, mortars, tanks, and airplanes bristling with weapons) would private gun ownership act as any deterrent to a government hostile to the civilian population? That being said I don’t own guns because of some fantasy of fighting the good fight against a tyrannical government. I own guns primarily because I enjoy the shooting sports and for personal protection of my home and myself. Although the later is an after thought and I acknowledge home protection being needed is as likely of occurring as me being struck by lightning. I don’t have any answers just more questions I just wish we could have a more logical and civilized conversation about gun violence on the national level and I think ending any limits on research around gun violence is a great place to start. Without facts we only have our preferences and emotions to argue about which certainly doesn’t help.
Barry, who is asking people to give up all firearms? And who’s asking to stop researching causes of gun violence? What’s being proposed now is stricter regulations and laws regarding the ownership and licensing of guns and ammunition. What’s already well established in psychological studies is that violent movies and video games do not make a society more violent.
The question of when is armed revolution morally justified is certainly an interesting and sticky point. But there’s a pratical matter, beyond that. Even if you believed that armed revolution were justified, how is having an armed populace really going to get the job done? I’m pretty sure they could suppress anything that an armed revolutionary vanguard could come up with.
The other question I have when people claim they need guns to protect against tyranny concerns parity. In the founding fathers’ time, the government had guns and cannons – which were powerful but not very maneuverable. If they came for you, it would be with guns. The same kind of guns you as a citizen could get. Today, the government outguns you by orders of magnitude. What possible stand could a “well regulated militia” make against the US army? If that’s really the argument, then private citizens should really be allowed to have the same weaponry as the military. In which case, hello Canada, here I come.
Yes, there’s also the question of how successful you really think you’d be against the forces of the government.
Shooting sports are fun.
Beyond that, my opinion on revolution is probably most on par with this guy here.
Thanks for the link, Barry! His views on anarchism and revolution are very thoughtful. Much more thoughtful than I’ve found so far among a lot of 2nd Amendment worshipers.