The Second Amendment Failed Its Biggest Test on January 6, 2021
January 6 was a test for the 2A and its true-believers, and both failed completely.
There was a moment at the start of the Ukraine war when I stumbled across a conservative U.S. website. The commenters there were stimulated by the recent story that Ukrainians had told a Russian Warship to “Go fuck yourself!” and were then killed. (It turned out the story was only partly true — the defiant Ukrainians were captured.)
Someone on the forum asked a question: “If the United States was attacked by a foreign power, would you arm yourself and launch guerilla-style attacks like in Ukraine, or those in the movie Red Dawn?”
There was a lot of “Hell yeah!” and the usual easy promises of exceptional courage. It’s a predictable response from too many gun enthusiasts when they consume sanitized war reports.
It was a good time with lots of rah-rah going on. So of course, I had to step in and ruin the fun.
I suggested to them that they already had their chance to defend our sacred freedoms: on January 6. When an angry mob attacked the capitol with intent to sabotage the counting of votes, the well-regulated militia that the second amendment promises never showed. Because it doesn’t exist.
January 6 was a test for the 2A and its true-believers, and both failed completely. There was no organized militia that rode to the rescue to protect our freedom to vote.
Further, and I can’t prove this, but my personal speculation is in the Venn diagram where one circle is “Participated in January 6” and the other is “Believes the 2A Protects Freedom” would show a lot of overlap.
But back to the forum. I had stirred up a hornet’s nest with my question: “If you say you would defend our nation, why didn’t you rush to Washington, D.C. on January 6, 2021 when our freedoms came under attack?”
“You voted for Biden,” said one, and in doing so, revealed himself and a lot more. He showed that he wasn’t about defending freedom. He was about defending HIS freedom — and only his. Big difference.
By contrast, when I was working the voting polls, I helped anyone and everyone vote. I protected the RIGHT TO VOTE. I didn’t ask, “Who are you voting for?” and then say, “Oh I approve — you can vote.” Or “No, I don’t approve. You can’t vote.” etc.
When Hilary Clinton lost in 2016, I was disappointed, but I accepted the outcome of the contest. When Donald Trump lost in 2020, this was not reciprocated — even in official circles. There’s another difference.
The 2A allegedly provides for a means for the people to defend freedom, but it forgets that a lot of people don’t think about what freedom is. They defend their right to disagree — their right to live as they choose — but they don’t care about anyone else’s right to do the same.
So where do we go from here? I think we start by assuring people that just because their candidate lost, they still have inalienable rights. Those cannot be altered by any candidate or president.
Unfortunately, those rights currently include a right to as many firearms as you like, even if you aren’t part of a well-regulated militia, and even if you don’t rise up to defend freedom, and even if your definition of freedom is infantile (you get what you want, no one else does.)
I’m critical of these folks I encountered on that forum, but let me share a kind word for them. The intent to defend freedom is a noble impulse, I’ll give them that. But that honorable goal has been hijacked and corrupted by gun mythology and a fantastical version of individualism, all in the service of selling more firearms.
We have to remind them that to get freedom, you have to give it. Defending freedom doesn’t mean just looking out for your own. In means looking out for freedom as a whole.
