The real 2nd amendment

Why firearms don't represent the true intent of the 2nd amendment

Let’s take a tumble through controversy as I put a unique spin on the 2nd amendment. You see, I think the energy Americans put into defending their right to bear arms may be off base and in this article I’d like to explain why. Shall we take a shot at it?

I’m a big fan of logic and as far as I can tell the natural conclusion of the 2nd amendment is that all those guns are perfectly useless sitting in a safe or tucked away in the closet. For a firearm to be any kind of deterrent against government overreach a gun owner must be prepared to chamber a round, point the barrel of their weapon at a police officer and shoot him in his face so that his leaky convulsing corpse collapses twitching on their freshly blood stained front lawn.

That’s brutal right… I have no intention of ever doing that, and I suspect most people don’t either. My language is harsh but recess is over and we’re not in the business of sugarcoating reality. The pulpified policeman scenario is the logical extrapolation of the 2nd amendment, isn’t it? Imagine: the Federal Government enacts a weapons ban. As a registered gun owner you’re in a database and the Feds know where to find you.

After failing to voluntarily surrender your rifle during the grace period, one sunny day the SWAT team shows up at your house to confiscate your Christensen Arms CA-15 chambered in versatile .223 Wylde and if you want to continue exercising your right to bear arms you must initiate a gun battle which will almost certainly result in your death, life in prison or execution by lethal injection. Given what’s at stake I think the majority of citizens will not pull the trigger.

Notice that I’m not arguing for or against gun control, I’m merely pointing out that one of the reasons the people who created our country wanted us to have weapons so that we could shoot authority figures, and I think that Americans have far less of an appetite for that type of thing than they did 250 years ago.

The real 2nd amendment

When the programmers of our society wrote the constitution the musket was a formidable device. A bunch of backwoods rednecks defeated the world’s greatest army with innovation, superior knowledge of the land, black powder and a lot of self-reliance. Does anyone truly believe that a militia of middle aged men and their AR-15s could take on the US army and win today?

Rifles aren’t what they used to be. Drones, robots and aircraft carriers are the instruments of life cessation that win today’s battles. I’m reminded of this outstanding and rather chilling video. This 👇 is a lethal weapon, not a Glock.

I think that the people obsessed with the 2nd amendment are getting distracted by a big shiny ornament in the corner, while missing the looters who are tearing down the house behind them. The constitutional Framers gave us the right to bear arms because they wanted to empower citizens to resist their government. This should be viewed as a symbolic gesture as much as anything, so the question we might ask is what is the 21st century equivalent of the 18th century’s rifle?

I would argue that the real 2nd amendment might be closer to,

• The right to have fully encrypted communication free from government and private sector surveillance, including access to an unfiltered internet

• The right to transact freely and anonymously without the government monitoring/blocking transaction. I.e. no CBDCs

• The right to travel and live freely (no lockdowns)

If we could get everyone worked up about these issues the same way they get hopping mad about guns, I think it would benefit those of us who would prefer to not have the Federal government dictate whether we can leave our homes, what we can buy or what we can say online.

The message

Jordan Peterson has taught me so much. As corny as it sounds, I keep my room clean because of him and that simple act has noticeable benefits on my state of mind. On the intellectual front one of the most important lessons I’ve learned from JP is that Biblical tales are rarely meant to be interpreted literally.

Noah’s Ark sounds foolish at first glance, but if you view that tale as a warning to get your affairs in order so that you can weather the storm it makes a lot more sense. Or the whale swallowing Jonah as an allegory for the darkness that can swallow your life if you make enough bad decisions. Christianity does itself a disservice by teaching these tales literally, instead of extracting the lessons and showing the congregation how timeless wisdom can benefit their lives.

I view the 2nd amendment in much the same way. It would have been impossible for the Framers to anticipate what 21st century America would look like. In their time, when the fastest way to get a message from New York to Boston was to have a guy on a horse deliver it, the most effective deterrent to government overreach was a firearm. That’s no longer the case. Today we wage information warfare and controlling the algorithm is far more important than hoarding the hollow points. Encrypted email and cash aren’t as sexy as a John Wick’s compensated H&K, but it’s probably more in the spirit of what the founders intended for the people.