Alpha Stock Images
Last time, I used the cultural ideology model, to analyse the US gun control debate and concluded that the solution lay in amending/repealing the cause of the problem. Commentators like Bill Maher were bold enough to identify the problem clearly.
But, it pays to understand the principle behind the 2nd amendment to mitigate any unintended consequences. Because, its clear thats what will hold up the amendment/repeal.
In Federalist No 46, Madison wrote how a federal army could be kept in check by state militias, "a standing army ... would be opposed [by] a militia." He argued that state militias "would be able to repel the danger" of a federal army, "It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops."
Is it possible in todays world to use the 2nd amendment to mitigate an attack from the federal government?
The US inherited a European concept of nationalism, by nature of invasion, which revolved around religion, race and language. With Internet and a globalised economy, diversity is increasing in all countries. This has led to increasing amount of radicalism across the world and conservatism taking root almost everywhere. Most of the islamic world has given up all appearances of democracy. With China abolishing term limits, Russia and North Korea endlessly being ruled by single names, and small countries like Phillipines & Maldives falling prey to non democratic leaders. It is not inconceivable theoretically for US to have a dictator.
Most of the arguments pointed to countries like Australia and UK for successfully controlling guns and reducing civilian deaths in their countries. It should be noted, that the US has a Presidential system unlike the Westminister type parliamentary system in the commonwealth nations. The US system puts power of the military, executive and judiciary, at various levels, with the President. Is it possible for the POTUS to prove Madison right?
First, A recent analysis anecdotally confirmed how Allisons Model 2 comes in handy in such situations. The responsiveness of the organisation and the time it takes to get them over to your side can be quite a challenge.
As Harry Truman said when he contemplated Dwight Eisenhower succeeding him, according to the scholar Richard Neustadt, "He'll sit here, and he'll say, 'Do this! Do that!' And nothing will happen. Poor Ike — it won't be a bit like the Army. He'll find it very frustrating."
Second, With increasing technology capabilities in the defence forces, will gun toting civilians be any match in fending off attacks? Has democracy, and the union, progressed well past this kind of attack to impose values? Is this form of defence against the union already dated? There are only 2 ways this can go. Allow citizens to buy any weapon the defence forces have access to, or utilise the power of the people and strengthen the organisational process into an effective deterrent against such an eventuality.
In case of the latter, amending the right to bear arms, into a privilege, will hardly cause any difference to the principle of federalism and save a lot of lives in the bargain.