Why is there massive support in this country for the right to own & use guns, but not for the right to communicate privately and not be tracked and monitored?
Do the same people who view banning guns as a threat not view massive surveillance as a threat?
Of course, I also support the right to bear arms. We need new protections from our government. Now is not the time to be wolves, not little lost sheep in search of a protector.
I support both the 2nd and the 4th amendments.
I think the reason you don't hear as much of an outcry about surveillance is because it is usually not noticeable, whereas weapons restrictions are very noticeable if you're someone who takes an interest in them.
If modern arms are cyber-warfare and information flow, then the arms to keep that power in check are computation, math, encryption, anonymity, private messaging, realtime chat, social networks, web graphics ...
So the right to bear arms in todays terms, I would argue, _is_ the right to a) private internet communications between parties and b) public information broadcast to everyone
p.s. web graphics?
1. This is just more proof that we (the people) need to hold on to whatever arms we can get. We've mistakenly let our military accrue a cache and kind of weaponry that we have not allowed even ourselves to possess. If the powder keg does explode, less arms is not better than more.
2. Many service men and women take their pledge to uphold the constitution very seriously, and would not take up arms against the American people (and most likely would take up arms against a tyrannical government, should it come to that). This is why many veterans are proclaimed mentally incompetent and disarmed (http://www.benefits.va.gov/pensionandfiduciary/fiduciary/ben..., http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NlBgtIeU1s).
3. There are 1.5 million active military personnel and 850 thousand reserves (Wikipedia). There 311 million Americans, not including the roughly 3 million that are active or reserve military personnel. We are a bigger force by far.
4. "You're going to die if you fight." Appeal to emotion.
5. "How can you even say that with a straight face." Appeal to ridicule.
6. There are many reasons to "want a gun" beyond protecting yourself from tyranny, including self defense from criminals, sport, hunting and recreation. But "wanting" has nothing to do with it. You don't need to explain why you want a gun and you don't have to show a "need" for it. It is your inalienable (seriously, look this word up, ponder its meaning) right. It cannot be taken from you (though you can give it up willingly, I suppose).
EDIT:
7. In 2011, Ron Paul received 6 times (http://ronpaulronpaul.com/) more in contributions from active military personnel than all of the other republican candidates combined. For those that don't know, Ron Paul ran on a campaign of small government, less war, etc. That should tell you where our military stands on this matter.
I don't have that right, ergo it must not be inalienable. I might as well say it is an inalienable right to possess pipe bombs and molotov cocktails. At least those things are easily obtainable.
But again, there's a double standard going on here. Our government, even our local police forces, have these capabilities. They have the modern day and sophisticated equivalents of pipe bombs and molotov cocktails (grenades, flash bangs, drones, actual assault rifles, etc). Why are we trusting these people with these kinds of munitions? Anybody who has been paying any attention in the last 50 years has seen the gross abuses of power perpetrated by our police and government. So I ask again, why are we allowing them to have this kind of fire power? Or, do they just take it without our consent? If so, why do we need their consent to arm ourselves? Aren't we the boss? Don't they work for us? Aren't they public servants?
This has been disproved by President Washington during the Whiskey rebellion. Everyone had equal guns and the insurrection was squashed.
It's actually reminiscent of the "got nothing to hide" argument re: surveillance!
Secondly, yes the gap in power has widened. But just look to the Revolutionary War. The British had the world's greatest troops, and the world's greatest Navy. (Hell, the Queen's Navy was like the prototypical American Navy) The power gap was already tremendous.
I'm not a philosopher on the issue or anything, but the crux of the matter, the thing that makes revolution different from war, is the government does not need to crush. It needs to obtain consent. It wishes to govern, not to conquer, for a government without people is nothing at all.
Firearms are one of the ways the populace can resist in some fashion, can refuse to consent.
I understand the principle and I respect it. I just really, personally and at a visceral level hate the idea of armed uprising. I want the system to be salvageable. I want dialogue and compromise. But I suppose if it came down to real, true tyranny then you'd be correct. Everyone has the right to stand against that.
It's a deterrent - enough people armed and willing to shoot at the government means that the government doesn't come knocking to create the situation wherein everyone loses.
It's basically p2p/distributed mutually assured destruction.
Eric Blair (who's ratings are spiking on Amazon this week, incidentally) once wrote: "That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or laborer’s cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."
"Stays there" both in the RKBA sense, and "stays there" in the "above the mantel and not taken down out of necessity" sense.
2. You're more likely to be in combat against DHS/ATF/FBI, not military. You're even more likely to be in combat against local cops.