Great Gun Gobbledygook: The Paradox of Second Amendment Hardliners (Major strawman alert)

The Atlantic ^ | April 1, 2013 | Dominic Tierney, assoc. professor, Swarthmore College

[2ndDivisionVet]

In the current debate over gun control, the pro-gun lobby has an ace card up its sleeve: We need weapons to prevent government tyranny, they say. These self-styled champions of liberty see guns as the ultimate insurance policy to protect the Constitution. The problem is that most of those making this argument also strongly support a massive U.S. military -- exactly the behemoth we must be armed against. It's the great gun gobbledygook.

Consider Marco Rubio. The senator just threatened to filibuster any gun-control legislation because the Second Amendment "speaks to history's lesson that government cannot be in all places at all times, and history's warning about the oppression of a government that tries."

The specter of government despotism looms so large our only salvation lies with a nation of armed watchmen.

But curiously, Rubio also strongly supports beefing up government power by creating a vast military establishment.

--snip--

Or take Sarah Palin. As governor of Alaska, she signed an amicus brief that claimed: "The Framers were understandably wary of standing armies and the powers of a potentially oppressive government." The Second Amendment provides for "a citizenry capable of defending its rights by force, when all other means have failed, against any future oppression." Last February, Palin even suggested that the federal government is "stockpiling bullets in case of civil unrest."

But where did these bullets come from? They came from champions of a strong military -- like Sarah Palin....

[ctdonath2]

The 2nd Amendment may be read another way and make perfect sense, to wit: “despite the presence of a standing army, the people still have the right to own, carry, and use as appropriate any and all weapons.” The Founding Fathers disliked standing armies as they tend toward misadventures and oppression, but realized they were a necessary evil and laid out principles for constructing a nation-protecting military. Recognizing some would construe the existence of a standing army as obviating the need for an armed populace (or any other excuse for disarming the people), the clear right to self-armament was enumerated.

[Triple]

“The problem is that most of those making this argument also strongly support a massive U.S. military — exactly the behemoth we must be armed against.” - article

So:

The US should have sufficient armed forces to deter threats and to conduct war, should the need arise.

-and-

The citizens of the USA have the right to bear arms to protect themselves and the state from all enemies, foreign or domestic.

Are somehow inconsistent thoughts or “gobbledygook” according to the Atlantic?

It just sounds like common sense to me...

[CodeToad]

Didn’t you know, Iraq and A’stan were cake walks. All we had to do is launch one fighter jet, one tank, and one platoon of Marines and it was all over.