I keep an eclectic cross section of friends and family. To be fair, one group I choose while the other I have no control over, but I digress. On more than one occasion I’ve found myself in calm conversations, heated debates, or even frothing at the mouth fire and brimstone arguments with people in my life that are left of center. Identity politics are what have brought us to where we are today. On a personal level, it’s about liberties. That’s it. If a candidate or political group beholds civil rights as holy as I do, then I tend to be more agreeable with them. A group of Afghani women and the situation they’re living are prime examples to make a solid case against nay-sayers.

When the Second Amendment comes up in discourse all kinds of topics splinter off. One of the things that seems to crop up from time to time is the notion of the people having the right to keep and bear arms because of a tyrannical government or for dealing with insurrectionists. This is one facet of many concerning the importance and existence of our right to arms. Generally speaking my left to center cohorts are very dismissive to this concept. I don’t get it. I just don’t. The fact that the United States was born from a people that were tired of having a thumb placed over them should be enough. Or, heh, I don’t know, explore the dangerous policies that are being pushed, or watch our cities burn at the hands of domestic terrorists. Pick your poison. But I’m met with “That’ll never happen here.”

A recent piece published in The Guardian tells the story of what can happen when extreme ideologies can run unchecked. What’s this all about?

Women have taken up guns in northern and central Afghanistan, marching in the streets in their hundreds and sharing pictures of themselves with assault rifles on social media, in a show of defiance as the Taliban make sweeping gains nationwide.

One of the biggest demonstrations was in central Ghor province, where hundreds of women turned out at the weekend, waving guns and chanting anti-Taliban slogans.

They are not likely to head to the frontlines in large numbers any time soon, because of both social conservatism and lack of experience. But the public demonstrations, at a time of urgent threat from the militants, are a reminder of how frightened many women are about what Taliban rule could mean for them and their families.

“There were some women who just wanted to inspire security forces, just symbolic, but many more were ready to go to the battlefields,” said Halima Parastish, the head of the women’s directorate in Ghor and one of the marchers. “That includes myself. I and some other women told the governor around a month ago that we’re ready to go and fight.”

The Taliban have been sweeping across rural Afghanistan, taking dozens of districts including in places such as northern Badakhshan province, which 20 years ago was an anti-Taliban stronghold. They now have multiple provincial capitals in effect under siege.

While the event is being chalked up as being mostly symbolic, it does speak volumes. To not make a political statement about the fact that the United States is pulling their forces from Afghanistan by summer’s end by the Biden-Harris administration, however reading a story like this makes me wonder about the administration’s view on women’s rights.

In areas they control, the Taliban have already brought in restrictions on women’s education, their freedom of movement and their clothing, activists and residents of those areas say. In one area, flyers were circulating demanding that women put on burqas.

Given this “situation”, as we can call it, I can’t think of a more compelling reason to defend the Second Amendment here in the United States. Yes, as I’ve stated, “that’ll never happen here”, as we’re told by some, but are we all that sure? To suggest similar situations of playing out over here in the free world may seem melodramatic to certain people, but is it really that much of a stretch? To put it in simple terms, what we’re discussing is one group of people that want to exert their will on other groups of people. Anyone that is dismissive of the Bill of Rights being a document that we should follow, if they can say in their heart of hearts that in this country we don’t have groups of people that are trying to exert their will on others, then maybe the argument of having an armed society for such purposes is outdated. Of course that’s really not true.

The meaning of the Second Amendment and the whys behind it extend beyond just this one argument. If we had to distill the core principals of this right, which is only enumerated by the Bill of Rights, but granted to us by our creator, we could do so easily by looking at mother nature. All organisms are afforded their own defense mechanisms and consider arms to be the “teeth” for the masses. Since we wouldn’t subscribe to social Darwinism principals, this should make sense. Further, in this context, it should make more sense to those that enact policy in the name of equality, or the newly minted equitable philosophies. To disarm the population is to disarm everyone, including the down-trodden, and in this case, women who are not treated equally…or equitably. Well, you get the picture. One thing that is apparent from The Guardian’s piece, these women don’t intend on being further controlled.