I originally started thinking about this when prompted by a Failbook entry (which I can't find) from someone saying he had no Zombie Survival plan, and suggesting that they were largely about the fantasy of being able to commit anti-social acts (killing people and taking their stuff) without looking like psychopaths. He was somewhat more concise, but that's the drift.
Then I found this which makes the very cogent argument that there appear to be large numbers of people who will fight tooth and nail to keep their guns, but won't lift a finger to keep all the other rights their guns are supposed to be protecting.
The United States, it seems to me, is all about taking the risk of living in freedom. We booted out the English (then one of the world's great powers, and arguably the greatest at the time). And we have since put up with the steady stream of casualties caused by widespread gun ownership, so that potential tyrants cannot take over by force (and indeed, so that they hopefully never try). But one well-executed terrorist attack has apparently made people perfectly willing to hand over all sorts of powers to governments, in the hope of protection from further attacks. Even (and sometimes especially) those who fight hardest for their guns - it seems to be a left-right thing.
So here's a very obvious point: the best time to protect your rights is when you have a lot of them, because the more of them you can protect, the easier all the others are to protect. It's much harder to organize a protest against TSA restrictions if you can be arrested for disturbing public peace. And a tyrannical government won't announce that it's arresting you for still having guns; it will arrest you for planning a terrorist attack, based on secret evidence.
And here's another: the best way to defend yourself from an oppressive government crackdown / zombie epidemic is to make sure it never happens. You might well prevail against an attack by government troops more than half the time (good luck, and ask the Syrian rebels what their casualty figures are like). But your chances of surviving no attack are much, much better. Especially when you're trying to live a normal life.
So sure, fight for your second amendment rights. But fight for all the other ones as well - don't let the government tap people's phone without a warrant, or assassinate people they don't like. And more importantly, fight for other people's rights as well - it's much easier to keep them for everyone than to argue that you should be special.
Rand Paul brought this into focus this week with his filibuster against the appointment of John Brennan. Now, I agree with Rand Paul on just about nothing. I think libertarianism is as wrong-headed as communism, just in a different direction. But on this he is 100% correct: the question of whether the government is permitted to assassinate US citizens without trial is absolutely vital. And the longer it goes unasked the harder it will be to reverse the ill effects of allowing such things.
In the words of the fifth amendment: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger..."
If the constitution can be ignored on such a crucial issue, nothing is safe. I would love to see the NRA's fervour put into pursuing this.
