A week ago, some nutcase in Colorado decided to take an arsenal in to a crowded theater and shoot a bunch of innocent people. It’s a horrible tragedy and now that the collective national shock has subsided, the good ol’ gun control debate has begun popping back up.
Here’s the Second Amendment to the US Constitution as a brief refresher to us all:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Fast forward to today, 2012. The Syrian city of Aleppo has been bombarded by artillery, tanks and helicopter gunships. And the Syrian government doesn’t even have a fraction of the fancy military weaponry that the US has. The rebels in Aleppo seem to have held strong today but the Assad regime’s bloodthirsty and indiscriminate shelling of cities and neighborhoods over the past several months have proven that the regime has no regard for civilian safety. So the only recourse for the people of Aleppo has been to flee, en masse.
What if the men, women, and children of Aleppo would have had a well-regulated milita? How well regulated and armed would it need to be to withstand constant shelling?
It’s easy to go out and buy a handgun or maybe even a semi-automatic assault weapon, but how does a civilian go about buying a Bell AH-1 Cobra helicopter or an F/A-22 Raptor? Of course it’s meant to be a ludicrous question, but it is also meant to illustrate my point that the tools of warfare have far outpaced the ability of a well-regulated militia of minutemen to defend against any government attack.
I totally get where the founders were on this, but in the modern age, the best defense against tyranny is not a well-regulated militia armed with assault rifles, but a well-educated populace (both men and women) armed with a vote, and with the liberty to maximize their collective pursuit of happiness.