The Second Amendment is perhaps the biggest psychological manipulation to ever be in the history of laws

The most offered justification for the US gun business (sales to the public) is based on the argument that the Second Amendment of the US constitution provides ground for ‘uninfringeable’ gun ownership. It promotes the idea that the people have to bear guns so that they can defend against possibility of being overruled by a tyrant. Therefore, according to the amendment the people possess arsenals in case they have to check the government’s attempt to abuse their rights. The US constitution is a respected treasure, yes. Yet people should tell the truth whenever the document’s clauses are used to take the mass for a ride. On this provision, the amendment is blackmailing the citizens.

The Second Amendment is?perhaps?the biggest psychological manipulation to ever be in the history of laws. It is a cunning entry.

First, it proposes that the oligarchies who created the US Constitutional Republic and its democracy (name: the founding fathers) saw that they had to be pushed out of power by the people if the latter saw they deserved to. Wow! See this pretence, uh? This means that in the years 1770s, 1780s and 1790s the US elites dag their own graves. No. This is impossible to comprehend unless you are reading too much John Locke. There is no politician who can afford?meaning?that in his words, let alone contracting it in a sanctified text. John Locke wrote thoughts, he was not a politician. He was a thinker. I believe he would have written something more refined and rather protective had he belonged to the British royalty. A politician knows this better.

Second, the amendment presupposes that the people (the US citizens) can organise themselves in time to mount an armed reaction against the republic if it is bent to use force (i.e. a tyranny). It probably was?nearly?so back in the 18th century (around America’s independence in 1776) when the people had a collective conscience; that of being overwhelmingly anti-British colonialism. In those days unity amongst the people could swiftly be fostered. The British colonial order had musketeers for soldiers, similarly, the people owned muskets for self-defence. There was a semblance of balance in terms of armament, somehow. It was an age when canons rattled. Well, obviously the nationalists could take their chance against the British.

Third, the amendment presupposes that whilst the US government is growing anarchic, it can overlook the fact that its people are armed. With this ignorance, the federal government would give loopholes that could enable the people’s guns to successfully defend their rights. This assumption is impractical. It is possible where the government is not as swift in intelligence gathering as is Washington. It needs an insensitive tyrant for the clause to work. As a matter of tradition, a tyrant is first thing concerned with power plays, power control and strategic checks on power distribution amongst his people. This is the reason why tyranny and dictatorship are bloodhounds. They tend to take care of anyone?presumed?a threat.

Fourth, the amendment implies that an armed people can faceoff with a heavily armed, well-trained and timely supplied Army of the tyranny. No. This would be suicidal. The US citizens have and own?a select?Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW). There are many categories of weapons only the federal forces own. The majority are weapons that people cannot think of owning. It would be daydreaming to face the monster weapons the US Army possesses. There simply is no balance of power between the two.

Fifth, the amendment overlooked the fact that the winner in a faceoff between a tyrannous bloody republic and a ragtag (easily divisible lot) public would be the use of factors such as intelligence, timing, skills, financial resources, the sophistication of weapons, etc. All those are far removed from mere possession of automatic guns. The factors, on the other hand, are fully the preserve of the US government. If a government switches to tyranny, it tends to make the factors readily ready. It is a setup that eventually pre-empts the people’s thoughts that they can defend themselves.

The sixth is the buster. It is that the Second Amendment overlooks the manner by which tyranny and dictatorship come about. Reading through the amendment, it seems the framers thought of the?damned?dictatorship which emerged from thin air and busted on the spot as does a thunderstorm. In the damned evolution, dictators came from the Army. They were soldiers who, all of a sudden, locked away their military attires and clad diplomatic suits to walk into the statehouses. With that unfolding, it is conceivable that the people can run to their arsenals to grab weapons and wage fights against the oath abuser(s). That is not what happens in a democratic republic. The people cannot defend against tyranny because it is born out of their everyday lives.

Throughout history, the birth of dictatorial tyranny has largely been associated with disgruntlement amongst the citizens. Thus, very gradually people diverge towards the?cult of personality?and start favouring an individual above?whacked?traditions. You have a clean view of this transition when you read how Gaius Julius Caesar ascended and became Rome’s tyrant. He got favoured by the people actually, they preferred him to Rome’s traditions. Likewise, if tyranny is to rise in the USA it will begin with traits of populism, demagoguery, or both. It will not appear abruptly. It won’t be the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff walking in to throw the president out the window. No. It will have to be a smart move, an almost impalpable one.

Plato observes that tyranny is a culmination in a smooth, responsive and measured progression. Political regimes evolve through Aristocracy → Timocracy → Oligarchy → Democracy → Tyranny. Therein Plato shows the fact that tyranny is born out of the context of a democracy. Say; democratic republics run the course that eventually attains condition for the rise of tyranny. Caesar’s Rome was a Republican democracy — just like the USA is. When it appears, therefore, tyranny happens to have a chunk of the population already prepared to support?the novel cult. This means, in reality, that it meets an already divided republic. If?some?will choose to use their guns as the Second Amendment guarantees, well, that means the people have a start to killing each other in support of partisanship and/or personalities. Do you now grasp what role guns play in tyranny?! They help to spring up civil wars.

The Second Amendment is a white elephant.