Americas, USA, Opinion, Politics

Second Amendment: The Federal Fallacy of Disarmament

The Second Amendment cannot physically pertain to the United States military or to a government centralized organised militia, such as mercenaries. It can only apply to private citizens, because at the time it was penned in 1791, there was no standing military force in the United States.

At the time, there were some mercenaries and defectors that had been hired to fight alongside farmers, masons, carpenters, lumberjacks, and sailors. Even private civilian fishing boats were equipped with cannons in order to go to war; demonstrating the strength of non-military factions within the country.

Second amendment

The Minutemen were a prominent militia group during the days of the American Revolution (1765-83), preluding the Second Amendment.

Second Amendment: Irrational Suppression?

Attempting to suppress millions of citizens when the United States Army can’t deploy most of their weapons would be difficult, especially when you have to deal with the likelihood of massive military defections in the first place. Too many soldiers would not be willing to carry out such a command would know that it countermands the constitution that they had taken an oath to uphold.

How would it be possible to maintain the fuel supply for all of those tanks, drones and planes when every fuel depot is probably under attack by anti-government militias that would use it as an opportunity to sow chaos? Similarly, would it even be possible to police any population when the majority of gun owners think that the anti-gun lobbyists and federal government are scum and that they are trying to enslave them? Most certainly not.

Ultimately, the federal government and the United States military would fail; especially because the proponents of disarmament are all disarmed anyway. They don’t have guns; or at least very few of them compared to the people they would be opposing.

Federal agents

Federal Agents: Friend or foe?

Politics Won’t Solve the Second Amendment Issue

In ten or fifteen years time, there may be less gun control in the United States, not more. Even if Democrats were running the House and the Senate with a Democratic president (as witnessed with the first two years Barack Obama was in office). There would simply not be any overtures to gun control. It’s too unpopular an issue, bringing a strong sense of divisiveness to politics that would destabilize any presidency.

In addition to this, it is simply impossible to figure out a system by which guns can’t be sold to anybody who want’s to obtain them and has enough money to do so. It would not be feasible, even if it was supported on a moral basis, how would the federal government disarm people? Millions of people would fight back and it very well may crush the United States altogether. There would still be countless weapons, but there would be exactly in the hands that you would want to remove them from if there was any semblance of sanity.

There are much more effective ways to deal with the firearms issue in the United States. The federal government should end the drug war, decriminalize narcotics and thus take away guns and ammunition from gangs; we would find that their proceeds would dry up quite quickly. Perhaps that would be much more effective than any wholesale firearms restrictions, don’t you think?

About Peter Mossack

Peter is the CEO of Kinstream Media, and he manages the editorial board and day-to-day operations as the publisher of CrowdH. He’s a tech and news junkie, and an avid social media analyst who’s always on the lookout for new stories to cover. He has been an entrepreneur for the past 20 years and he’s now dedicated to change the news, and the world!

All Articles