Last week, presidential candidate and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson made a string of comments on the shooting in Oregon. One of Dr. Carson’s claims was if the Jews in Nazi Germany had been armed, then Hitler’s plans for the Holocaust would have been greatly diminished. This line of inane rhetoric is nothing new, with many in the National Rifle Association (NRA) and other gun lobby groups citing this ill-thought-out hypothetical for several years.
We can completely ignore the historical context of the highly built up military apparatus in Germany at the time, or the fact that some Jews did attempt armed resistance and ultimately failed in not just Germany, but other parts of Nazi-occupied Europe as well.
Instead, the main message here is that an armed populace would be able to maintain a check on the government. Many will point to the Second Amendment as a testament to the Founding Fathers’ will for the populace to be armed against tyranny. While it may be true that armed farmers could have put up a fight against the United States army at the time, there is absolutely no conceivable way the circumstances of the late 18th century and the 19th century could be relevant to overthrowing tyrants today.
This mythos of revolting against tyrannical governments has allowed trouble to remain possible in the 21st century. As a country that spends more on its military than any other country, we have made many technological advancements when it comes to war. Drones alone could hinder any attempt at overthrowing tyrannical governments.
But there is a reason we are not actively living in a wet dream of Thomas Jefferson, having to feed the "tree of liberty" with the "blood of patriots and tyrants." Unlike the early days of this country, we know our system of government works, and it does so relatively well.
Yes, the system is very far from perfect. However, the rules of politics in this country are relatively clean and well defined. We have a system of government that makes it impossible for a single person to have tyrannical power. We have frequent elections that give us, the citizenry, the ability to oust people from office we feel are not effectively representing us in our districts, state or country (although we often fail to do so). The long term investment in the Constitution has paid off.
Honestly, the notion that anyone who advocates for more gun control is aligned with Pol Pot, Hitler or Mussolini is pettifogging the larger issue. This is not the only argument against the case for comprehensive gun legislation, as there are many to choose from.
What the NRA has done is created an effective spin zone, where guns are not the reason for mass shootings. In their eyes, mass shootings can be redirected to mental health.
I am not writing this as someone who is an advocate for abolishing the Second Amendment, but gun control is far from perfect in this country. The background check system is heavily flawed, and let’s be real, there are no substantive reasons for anyone to own an assault weapon.
But of course, we cannot talk about simple reforms, so instead I had to spend this article rebutting a candidate’s idiotic statement that had little to do with gun control. So it goes.
Kevin Foster is a UF political science senior. His column appears on Thursdays.
