Great Gun Gobbledygook: The Paradox of Second Amendment Hardliners

Conservatives say armed citizens are an essential guard against government tyranny. They also support massive military spending. How is that supposed to work?

Matt Sullivan/Reuters

In the current debate over gun control, the pro-gun lobby has an ace card up its sleeve: We need weapons to prevent government tyranny, they say. These self-styled champions of liberty see guns as the ultimate insurance policy to protect the Constitution. The problem is that most of those making this argument also strongly support a massive U.S. military -- exactly the behemoth we must be armed against. It's the great gun gobbledygook.

Consider Marco Rubio. The senator just threatened to filibuster any gun-control legislation because the Second Amendment "speaks to history's lesson that government cannot be in all places at all times, and history's warning about the oppression of a government that tries."

The specter of government despotism looms so large our only salvation lies with a nation of armed watchmen.

But curiously, Rubio also strongly supports beefing up government power by creating a vast military establishment. In 2012, he described defense cuts as "catastrophic" because "history has proven that the stronger the U.S. military is, the more peaceful the world becomes." According to Politico, in a recent speech at the University of Louisville, "Rubio made the case for American military might around the world."

Wait a sec, won't American military might mean a government that's in more places at more times? Isn't this precisely the terrifying prospect we must arm ourselves against?

Or take Sarah Palin. As governor of Alaska, she signed an amicus brief that claimed: "The Framers were understandably wary of standing armies and the powers of a potentially oppressive government." The Second Amendment provides for "a citizenry capable of defending its rights by force, when all other means have failed, against any future oppression." Last February, Palin even suggested that the federal government is "stockpiling bullets in case of civil unrest."

But where did these bullets come from? They came from champions of a strong military -- like Sarah Palin. She believes in fiscal conservatism, but with a clear exception for defense. "We must make sure, however, that we do nothing to undermine the effectiveness of our military." To diminish the government's standing army is to "risk losing all that makes America great!"

It's almost like George Washington grasping his musket as a defense of liberty -- while also seeking extra funding for the British redcoats.

When conservatives take up armed resistance against D.C. despotism, they'll really regret some of the toys they gave the government. Rubio and Palin want the populace to be able to arm itself with assault rifles. But they want the government armed with F-35s -- a $100 million-plus stealth plane with a top speed of Mach 1.6. When President Obama discovers his inner tyrant, it won't be a fair fight.

Of course, the American people can always play the Red Dawn card and launch an insurgency. But guerrillas usually need external support to win. Britain could be an option as an ally, except that, last summer, Mitt Romney insulted London's preparations for the Olympics.

Why the contradiction? Conservatives don't think of the military as part of the government. On the one hand, you have the shadowy Obama state, the inefficient Leviathan, the Feds, the black helicopters, or just "them." And on the other hand, you have the military, the righteous guardians of the nation.

But of course, the military is the government, subject to the same waste and inefficiency as any other part of Washington, D.C.

Conservatives say that a weaponized citizenry is a necessary shield against dictatorship. I'll take the argument more seriously if conservatives stop arming this tyrant to the teeth.