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 such as this:
More
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
6 comments:
Our Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force are not allowed to take any action against Americans on American soil. I think any govt entity would find it very difficult to get soldiers to attack their own people in the United States.
One can be pro gun and pro military when one understands the concept that the people are the government and the government is not our ruler. We are our own rulers. Unfortunately that concept is becoming lost on us.
The members of the military take an oath to uphold our Constitution, of which the 2nd Amendment is a part of, so there is no conflict in being pro-military & pro-2nd Amendment!!!
1:00
You are naive.
333
I thought the same thing!
1:00 is naive for sure.
Where to start?
3:33 and 10:40....
The scenario has been studied (over and over) by the military AND civilian leaders (secretly, of course).
It's STILL undecided as to whether or not the military can be counted on to attack American civilians.
They expect some units to switch sides, some units to stand down, some to blindly kill anyone, and some units turn on their counterparts. There will always be "order following storm troopers", but not enough of them.
THREE HUNDRED MILLION GUNS in civilian hands. That's the low estimate.
EIGHTY MILLION gun owners. TEN MILLION veterans.
Do the math.
There's only ONE result if they want to start something --- their bodies hanging from trees and lying in streets and fields across the USA.
Keep cheering.
Post a Comment