The idea on which they differed was on the purpose of the Second Amendment as a means to resist tyranny. “It’s fanciful to think that guns in the hands of citizens acts as a realistic check,” said Donohue. “They’re not really trained to do so. And it’s fanciful to think that the military would ever turn on U.S. citizens.” [More]"Ever" is a long time. Especially with the grid so vulnerable, the economy strained to the breaking point and foreign and domestic enemies stepping up the belligerence as their capabilities increase.
Where in history is any civilization guaranteed stasis? Has not despotism and mass destruction plagued every civilization that preceded ours? Is it not, in fact, still commonplace throughout the globe? By what suspension of reality, by what denial of the observable and the probable, by what art, device or magic are we sheltered few immune from catastrophe? Are we certain, from our brief and privileged vantage point, that such things will ever remain headline curiosities? Is it not just plain stupid to proclaim that our familiar way of life will forever be the norm, when everything that has gone before us shows we are, instead, the extremely lucky beneficiaries of a rare and fortunate convergence of circumstances; and one, by the way, that has only been preserved under force of arms?
Methinks the good "professor" is a dolt.
3 comments:
Donahue's ignorance of how firearms work is truly amazing in its depth. As far as the inability of civilians' ability to resist government tyranny, I would suggest he think about where are the people who trained our military members. I would further suggest he speak with many of the retired military in my area who are those trainers who still retain all of those skills. Just a little criticism of this sophomoric (wise fool) professor.
Yes. I would suggest the good professor look into the history of the Mujahedeen, or the Viet Cong....
"The firepower available when the Bill of Rights was written is not comparable to today’s firepower."
Irrelevant point. The "arms" in the right to keep and bear arms also refers to edged weapons. A bayonet or sword is just as deadly now as they were then. A colonial-era musket ball will readily kill now as it could then. A platoon of thirty men with colonial-era single shot rifles can kill as many people without reloading as one man with a modern rifle equipped with a thirty round magazine, but then an automobile will carry more people, further and faster, in more comfort than a horse. Radio and television efficiently reach more people than a single page printing press, yet the freedom of the press is the same for these media.
Post a Comment