The Second Amendment’s Authors Would Hate Today’s Military, by Ryan McMaken

The Second Amendment’s Authors Would Hate Today’s Military, by Ryan McMaken

Gun Rights

That militia mentioned in the Second Amendment wasn’t meant to supplement the military. It refers to state militias, which were supposed to be the military. From Ryan McMaken at mises.org : The phrase “pro-gun, pro-military” is used by some conservatives to describe themselves, as if the two go together seamlessly. For example, activist and political candidate Erin Cruz states she is both “Pro Second Amendment” and “Pro Military” in her promotional materials. Another Republican candidate, Gregory Duckworth, advertises that he advances “pro-gun and pro-military initiatives.” And last year, Donald Trump, Jr. — as part of a controversy over Keurig coffee pulling its advertising from Sean Hannity’s show — denounced Keurig and endorsed Black Rifle Coffee, which is advertised as a company with a “pro-gun and pro-military stance.” And yet, there is an inherent conflict between the two positions. This becomes evident when we consider the words of US Senator Tom Coburn in 2013: The Second Amendment wasn’t written so you can go hunting, it was to create a force to balance a tyrannical force here. Given that the US military is one of the primary means by which the US government can exert its own coercive force, it seems a bit odd to think that one can simultaneously be “pro-military” while also being for gun rights designed to “balance a tyrannical force here.” Even the left, which is prone to an especially high level of confusion when it comes to the gun issue, has identified the conflict with memes […]

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.