As you probably know that on the afternoon of Sept 10th (Mountain standard time), a 31-year old conservative activist, Charlie Kirk, was assassinated in a public event at the Utah Valley University in Utah.
A committed Christian, Charlie was extremely influential in the Republican camp. He was reasonable and always willing to engage in debate with his opponents. He graciously and consistently gave them the opportunity to argue their case to prove him wrong. As an American, he was committed to the freedom of speech that the US constitution protects (and most other “democracies” such as the UK, Australia, and India lack.)
Charlie Kirk was truly exceptional. Too much has been written about him for me to waste time on repeating his (sadly brief) life story. I have the same response to his passing as I have for the passing of any person famous or otherwise. Since he was a Christian, I recall the words of a Christian poet, John Donne. His meditation written in 1623 read in part:
“No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main . . . Any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
As a Hindu, I am involved not just in mankind but in all sentient beings.
“ॐ सर्वे भवन्तु सुखिनः सर्वे सन्तु निरामयाः ।
सर्वे भद्राणि पश्यन्तु मा कश्चिद्दुःखभाग्भवेत् ।
ॐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ॥”
“Om. May all be happy, may all be free from illness, may all see what is auspicious, and may no one suffer. Om shanti, shanti, shantihi.“
May Charlie’s soul rest in peace, as the Christian tradition says.
Charlie Kirk was clear about the right that the 2nd amendment of the US constitution guarantees, the right to bear arms. Ratified in 1791, it reads —
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Certainly someone exercising that right to bear arms ended Charlie’s life. But that does not invalidate the principle of the right of citizens to bear arms. The right to bear arms is aimed at resisting state tyranny. An armed citizenry is meant to resist a tyrannical government. That guarantee is not costless.
There are no perfect solutions. There are only trade-offs. The price of an armed citizenry is that occasionally innocent people get killed by the criminally inclined. But compared to the price of a tyrannical government, it is a price that a free society must be willing to pay. Charlie recognized that fact as a committed 2nd amendment promoter, and as it happened, he paid that price.
To have total and unconditional control of people, you have to first disarm them. All totalitarian states do that. The freedom to resist tyranny requires the freedom to own instruments necessary for protecting freedom. In the modern world, that means guns.
Americans own guns, unlike Indians. Two things immediately follow. One, there are more gun-related homicides in the US relative to India. Two, Americans have more freedom compared to Indians.
Would I like to live in a society that is free but with a higher probability of getting killed by a crazy nut, or would I like to live in a “gun free” society that is not free? I choose the former.
Freedom is not free.
Atanu Dey : Life is a Random Draw 
What will you tell a victim of K-12 school shooting?
K-12 School Shooting Database
LikeLike
JD:
What will I say to a victim of a school shooting? I will give my condolences. That’s all I can do. That’s pretty much the same as what I would do to a auto accident victim or his family.
If your point was that because of school shootings we should make gun possession illegal, then I would disagree. My position on gun control is based on the costs and benefits of an armed citizenry. Disarming the population requires a police state. I would rather not live in a police state. If you disagree and think that the benefits of a police state exceed the costs of a police state, then we can discuss that point
LikeLike
“My condolences to you, son. Although you will never be as exceptional as Charlie Kirk. The bullet that pierced you came from a divine right to bear arms, so bye bye”
LikeLike
Do you really think that firearms would be sufficient today to resist a tyrannical government? The weaponry ownedby both sides is asymmetrical, unlike in 1770s and 1800s. Government today possesses hi-tech weapons that are unlawful for regular citizens to possess.
LikeLike
The argument that firearms owned by citizens are insufficient to resist a tyrannical government due to the asymmetry in weaponry overlooks several key points:
1.Guerrilla Warfare Effectiveness: History shows that determined, armed civilians using small arms can effectively resist superior forces through guerrilla tactics. Examples include the American Revolution, Vietnam War, and Afghan resistance against Soviet and U.S. forces. Asymmetrical warfare relies on mobility, local knowledge, and attrition, not matching government firepower.
2. Numbers and Scale: In the U.S., there are approximately 300 million privately owned firearms and millions of armed citizens. Even a small percentage of these individuals resisting could overwhelm a military through decentralized, persistent opposition. The U.S. military, while advanced, has about 1.3 million active personnel, spread thin across global commitments.
3. Military and Police Loyalty: A tyrannical government would rely on its military and police to enforce control. However, these forces are composed of citizens who may sympathize with or defect to the resistance, especially if the government’s actions are widely seen as illegitimate. Widespread defections or refusal to fire on civilians could neutralize high-tech advantages.
4.Technological Vulnerabilities: Advanced government weaponry (drones, tanks, jets) depends on supply chains, fuel, and infrastructure, which are vulnerable to sabotage or disruption by small, armed groups. Cyber tactics and low-tech strategies can further undermine high-tech advantages.
5. Moral and Political Constraints: A government using overwhelming force (e.g., airstrikes, nukes) against its own citizens risks losing legitimacy domestically and internationally, potentially escalating resistance or inviting foreign intervention. Firearms in civilian hands force a government to weigh the cost of escalation.
6. Historical Context: The Second Amendment’s purpose wasn’t just about matching government firepower but ensuring citizens could deter tyranny through collective armed resistance. Even today, widespread firearm ownership complicates a government’s ability to impose absolute control without significant resistance.
While government forces have superior technology, the counterargument hinges on the practical and political limitations of deploying that power against a determined, armed populace using asymmetric tactics.
LikeLike
In the above comment, I let grok present the counter-argument to the claim that the 2nd amendment could not prevent tyranny.
LikeLike