What Noam Chomsky Gets Wrong About Gun Control
A Pro-2A Article
There is a reason why Dr. Noam Chomsky is considered one of the most influential left-wing scholars of our time. His staunch commitment to fair and objective analysis, his unwavering principles, and his long and illustrious career in academia grant him an honored place in the sphere of great contemporary thinkers. This author agrees with him on many points, including his uncompromising defense of free speech, his commitment to appraising the morality of U.S. policy by the same standard as he does all others, and his critical views of the state, corporations, and the media. It is fair to say that I consider Dr. Chomsky as a strong influence on my own thinking.
However, I staunchly disagree with his assessment of the Second Amendment. In short, he believes that the Second Amendment is simply inapplicable in the United States today. Moreover, he considers much of the argument in favor of gun rights to be made up of, as he puts it, “mad, crazed, delusions.”[1] In a YouTube interview posted on July 18, 2018, Dr. Chomsky bases his position on three points. First, he asserts that the federal government’s superior advantage in arms would render any armed resistance futile. Second, he refutes the originalist defense of the Second Amendment, stating that the reasons that justified an armed population at the time of our nation’s founding are irrelevant today. Third, he argues against the right-wing libertarian justification for gun rights that is based upon the defense against tyranny, stating that, even if the government was a hostile force (as opposed to an “instrument that is by, for and of the people”), resistance should not be attempted with firearms.[2] Chomsky clearly opposes the Second Amendment from at least a few angles. This author’s goal is to refute them all.
Past Wars Prove the Effectiveness of the Armed Underdog
In the interview, Chomsky first argues that any rebellious populace, regardless of how well armed they are, could never withstand the military might of a strong, developed nation like the United States. While he concedes that such a thing could be possible in developing nations against their own governments, where the balance of power doesn’t tilt so heavily in favor of the state, he considers the idea of a successful insurgency against a state like the U.S. government to be crazy. According to Dr. Chomsky, such a belief is “utter, total delusion”, that “has no relation to the actual world.”[3] According to him, any armed resistance against an oppressive government in the United States would be downright hopeless.
This is a surprisingly weak argument coming from the same world-class intellectual who once sparred with other eminent academics such as Michel Foucault, because two of our recent wars overseas prove otherwise. U.S. military disasters in the developing nations of Vietnam and Afghanistan are two historical examples that fly directly in the face of Chomsky’s assertion. In both conflicts, the invaded country was severely outgunned. Not only that, but neither of these countries were territorially larger than Texas, nor significantly more populated than California.[4] If the U.S. military has such a bad track record of successfully prosecuting wars against insurgencies in territories no larger than a single state, how could it be expected to do so against a domestic resistance of a similar or larger scale in its own country?
Another important point is that unlike a hypothetical domestic insurgency, neither the Taliban in Afghanistan, nor the NVA and Vietcong in Vietnam, possessed the ability to operate on the U.S. soil. Yet in both cases, the U.S. was either defeated, or withdrew before completing its stated objectives. This means that defeating a United States invasion can be achieved even without hitting the U.S. home front. A domestic insurgency would have the added advantage of being able to strike the opposing force on its own turf. Such actions could potentially disrupt the supply chains crucial to the war effort, result in the destruction of domestic defense infrastructure, and incur untenable financial costs. Not only that, but a domestic uprising would leave the United States vulnerable to the erosion of its power overseas. There is little doubt that countries like Russia and China would take full advantage of such chaos on U.S. soil to move on their own objectives. Given these factors, a protracted counter-insurgency campaign would simply not be an option. Due to the resulting time constraints, even the most ruthless despot would probably rush to the negotiation table sooner rather than later. If the United States military could not achieve its objectives against insurgencies overseas in a matter of decades, there is little chance that it could succeed at home, at least not as fast as it would need to.
This demonstrates that even a severely outgunned population can resist a tyrannical government, even if that government is of a highly developed country and even if that government possesses materiel such as an F-15s or nuclear weapons. (Right, Biden?)[5] Yes, these conflicts were bloody, messy, and excruciatingly long. But the fact remains; the most powerful military to ever exist on the face of earth was unable to defeat armed and determined resistances made up of even poorly armed guerrillas. So, no Dr. Chomsky, superiority of arms does not guarantee victory.
The Second Amendment is Very Much Still Applicable
Dr. Chomsky’s second assertion refers to Scalia’s opinion in the 2008 Supreme Court ruling in the case, Heller vs. The District of Columbia, where Scalia endorsed the individual’s right to bear arms, in accordance with his libertarian-leaning originalist convictions concerning the 2nd Amendment.[6] Chomsky points out that Scalia’s official opinion, while, as he admits, is very scholarly, is absurd when viewed from an originalist lens. According to Dr. Chomsky, guaranteeing the right to bear arms at the time of the founding of the United States served three purposes; defense against a potential British invasion, providing slave owners with firearms to suppress slave revolts, and killing Native Americans on the frontier. All three of these reasons, Dr. Chomsky observes, are clearly obsolete. He concludes that this renders the 2nd Amendment inapplicable today.[7]
The problem with this argument is that it not only fails to take 2A’s current applications into account, but it also neglects the underlying principle that supports it.
The fundamental right that justifies the 2A precedes the Constitution itself is the right to self-defense. This principle is inextricably tied to the first law of nature, that of self-preservation. So, while specific threats may come and go, the potentiality of threats is enduring, as is the necessity for possessing the means to overcome them.
The first, and perhaps most obvious justification for the right to bear arms is protection against criminal threats. Law enforcement agencies, while capable of mitigating criminal activity, cannot be counted on to prevent every criminal incursion. In many cases, potential victims come face-to-face with an aggressor with no hope of timely police intervention. Such is often the case with home invasions, assaults, and muggings. Regardless of institutions designed to safeguard the public, individuals are ultimately responsible for their own safety. The idea that people should be barred from accessing an effective means of defense considering these possibilities is absurd.
Another reason that makes the 2nd Amendment relevant today is that it provides a means for effective organized defense against civil disorder or persecution. The most recent example for this justification is the wave of riots that befell the nation in 2020 following the death of George Floyd at the hands of Derek Chauvin, a police officer for Minneapolis Police Department. As widespread looting, vandalism, violence, and destruction swept cities like Minneapolis, MN and Kenosha, WI., Police were powerless to stop them. Activated National Guard units did little more than stand by as rioters mocked them in passing. It is estimated today that the turmoil following George Floyd’s death accounted for over $2 billion in property damage.[8] At least 25 people were killed.[9]
Eventually, armed groups did develop to provide for defense of homes and business, as seen in cities such as Kenosha. Despite media condemnation of these “armed militias”, such groups were organized for the very purpose of defending residents from the impending destruction wrought by swarms of angry rioters and opportunistic rogues.[10] While these militias did not have a deciding effect on the end of the riots, they demonstrated an instance where the public was compelled to defend their rights and those of others through force of arms.
Another prime example of organized armed resistance against civil unrest or persecution is the triumphant Lumbee resistance against the Ku Klux Klan in Robeson County, North Carolina. On January 18, 1958, the KKK, led by James W. “Catfish” Cole, held a rally in a field near Maxton, NC. The purpose; intimidation. Or as Catfish Cole put it, “to put the Indians in their place, to end race mixing.” But these thugs were in for a surprise. That night, over a thousand Lumbee Indians, many of them armed, shot out the lights at the rally, and then fired their guns in the air as they descended upon the bewildered Klansmen, who then either sought to flee under police protection, or disappeared into the woods. It was the last time the Klan dared to hold a rally in Robeson County.[11]
In both of these cases, the necessity of organized resistance against common threats to life, liberty, health and property came in the absence of sufficient government aid. The justification for this predates the very U.S. Constitution itself. It is found in Locke’s 2nd Treatise on Government, a highly influential document for the Founding Fathers in America. Within this treatise, Locke asserts, that, “when by the miscarriages of those in authority, it [power] is forfeited; upon the forfeiture, or at the determination of the time set, it reverts to the society, and the people have a right to act as supreme, and continue the legislative in themselves; or erect a new form, or under the old form place it in new hands, as they think good.”[12] In other words, when the government fails to execute the duties delegates to it by the people, those same duties revert back to the people, to be performed as they see fit. The essential task of the government is to protect life, liberty, and property. When it fails, due to either unwillingness or inability, the public may justifiably reassume that responsibility in any way they feel necessary.
This should not be misconstrued as a call for the rise of armed bands of militias, posses, or vigilante groups to replace our traditional law enforcement agencies. But, in cases where law enforcement agencies and/or political leaders are unable or unwilling to stop a threat leads to unimpeded violence and destruction, the public must possess a means to defend themselves. To be perfectly frank, asserting that innocent people have a moral duty to cower helplessly or flee in the face of mob violence and pogroms is both preposterous and morally wrong. The right to bear arms, in this case, is fully justified.
Chomsky’s False Dichotomy of the Nature of Government
The interviewer finally asks Dr. Chomsky on his thoughts about the oft-cited justification for the right to bear arms based on the need to defend themselves due to the despotic nature of government. The renowned scholar rebuts this by explaining that one can only view the government as either being a tyrannical force that oppresses the people, or an institution that works in the interests of the people. If it’s the latter, according to Dr. Chomsky, basing any need on firearms is simply ridiculous. Even if the government was indeed oppressive, Chomsky asserts, it should be resisted, though not with guns (because that worked so well in Tiananmen Square, right?). This is of course a specious argument against the 2nd Amendment. The government itself is a morally neutral institution, albeit fundamentally one of force, whose nature can oscillate from beneficence to malevolence. This nature is contingent upon the character and substance of said government’s laws, structure, officials, and underlying governing philosophy. Obviously today, the thought of armed resistance the U.S. government seems absolutely absurd. But then again, so would the idea of mounting a resistance against the Weimar Republic, the government of post-World War I Germany that preceded the Third Reich. Yet when the Nazis seized control, they placed increasingly rigid restrictions on firearms as it tightened its stranglehold of the nation and ramped up its oppression of “undesirables”. (By this time, the process of disarming selected populations was well underway.)[13]
The point here, is that waiting until government becomes a danger to the very people it’s meant to protect before procuring arms makes about as much sense as procrastinating until a downpour to buy an umbrella or waiting for your house to catch fire before getting a fire extinguisher. It’s about being prepared. It sounds crazy to suggest that the U.S. government could devolve into a tyrannical state. That’s because our government today is very far from being one. (So anyone who thought I would actually advocate for armed rebellion against our current government can get started on their hate mail now). Yet it’s wise to bear in mind that this very event has happened throughout history. That’s why an armed population today provides protection in the face of an uncertain future.
So, while Noam Chomsky remains an astute intellectual who has made countless contributions to academic studies in a multitude of fields, he is just dead wrong about the utility of the 2nd Amendment. Despite what he may think, armed resistance does have the potential to resist oppressive governments, even when the people are outgunned. And While Dr. Chomsky correctly asserted that the original uses for the 2nd amendment are in the past, they have been replaced by new ones. Finally, the possibility of the degeneration of the U.S. government to a despotism, along with the previously demonstrated effectiveness of armed resistance, validates the right to bear arms. Bearing arms is not a dated concept, but a practice grounded in the timeless necessity of self-preservation of life and resistance to violence and plunder.
[2] Ibid
[3] Ibid
[4] https://www.ipl.org/div/stateknow/popchart.html
[5] https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-mocks-gun-right-advocates-who-say-assault-weapons-needed-fight-government-2021-6
[6] Ibid
[7] Ibid
[8] https://fee.org/articles/george-floyd-riots-caused-record-setting-2-billion-in-damage-new-report-says-here-s-why-the-true-cost-is-even-higher/
[9] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/31/americans-killed-protests-political-unrest-acled
[10] https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2021-10-15/lawsuit-over-kenosha-shootings-police-enabled-armed-militia
[11] https://www.ncpedia.org/history/20th-Century/lumbee-face-klan
[12] https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7370/7370-h/7370-h.htm
[13] https://wyoleg.gov/InterimCommittee/2019/01-201910313-04Handout.pdf