Second Amendment "Solution" Is Bogus Argument

Let me preface this post by saying that I do believe the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution gives American citizens the right to own a firearm -- and that right is reserved for individuals, not a militia.   The argument that the right only gives a "well-regulated militia" the right to own firearms is specious at best.   The fact that a militia would need firearms is simply a reason for the individual citizen to own a firearm.

I know that there are many on the left who would disagree with me about this.   All I can say is that I believe they are either misreading the Second Amendment or engaging in some wishful thinking.   I don't personally like guns, and I wouldn't complain if they all disappeared tomorrow.   But the Constitution is clear that our Founding Fathers intentionally gave individual American citizens the right to own firearms.

Having said that, I must say that one argument I've been recently hearing from the right-wing is a bogus argument.   They want us to believe that if our government were to become tyrannical, a "Second Amendment solution" would be needed -- that is, an armed uprising by the country's citizens.   This is ridiculous.   With the weapons our military has at hand, an armed uprising would be suicidal and guaranteed to fail.

That does not mean an uprising would be doomed to failure -- only an armed uprising.   If enough of a country's population wants to get rid of their government, that government cannot survive.   As Boris Yeltsin said,   "You can build a throne out of bayonets, but you can't sit on it for very long."

Some might think this doesn't make sense -- that an unarmed uprising could succeed while an armed uprising would be doomed to fail.   But we have many examples of this happening, even in some countries that had police states.   Consider the following:

* Dissolution of the U.S.S.R.
* Overthrow of the communist government in Poland
* Overthrow of the police state in East Germany
* Overthrow of the Marcos government in the Philippines
* Overthrow of the Shah in Iran
* British forced out of India
* Overthrow of Ceausescu in Rumania
* Defeat of military dictatorship in Argentina

All of the above were accomplished by enough people rising up to oppose those in power -- and they were accomplished without those citizens having or using firearms to attack the government.   If enough people want a government gone, it will fall.

There are examples of armed rebellions succeeding -- the American revolution in the 18th century, and the Cuban rebellion against a weak and ineffectual army.   But in neither of those cases were the rebels facing a force as well-armed and well-trained as the United States military.

In the twenty-first century a government can be overthrown by the will of the people, but it is highly unlikely an armed rebellion could succeed.   In fact, we were again shown just in the last week that a population can overthrow its government without armed rebellion when the people of Tunisia overthrew their government and chased their ruler out of the country.

We must always be vigilant in protecting our freedoms in this country.   It needs to be done through the electoral process and the courts, and in the last resort in an uprising of the citizens.   But the "Second Amendment solution" touted by many on the right is a stupid and bogus argument.