History Professor Alan E. Steinweis:
“Ben Carson’s statements about gun control are difficult to fathom….The Jews of Germany constituted less than 1 percent of the country’s population. It is preposterous to argue that the possession of firearms would have enabled them to mount resistance against a systematic program of persecution implemented by a modern bureaucracy, enforced by a well-armed police state, and either supported or tolerated by the majority of the German population.”
What's so preposterous? At least they'd have a fighting chance, no? At least some could save themselves while taking out some Nazis, no?
Honestly, I don't get this quote at all. Indeed, I find it somewhat unconscionable. He's basically saying they were doomed so why fight? It's insane as it is immoral.
Since when is it 'preposterous' for people to be armed? That they constituted only 1% of the population doesn't follow they shouldn't be armed because 'bigger force' in front of them. It's irrelevant to the principle and right to self-defense. So any minority should not be armed? Is this what he's saying?
If this be so, why should the American revolutionaries had been armed? What about Hungarians and Poles who protested communism? Why bother because the Soviets had all the guns, right? Why should the Kurds be armed, right?
The only preposterous notion I see here comes from the professor.
The 2A is not about hunting or militias or anything like that. It's exactly what it's meant to be. The right for people to bear arms because the idea of government tyranny is the rule and not the exception in world history.
Those who argue otherwise ignore or rewrite this tidbit about human history.
***
Another way to look at this is the hypothetical scenario where the houses on your street decide to come get your stuff, have you no right to defend yourself with arms?
History is but about attacks on villages, castles, kingdoms etc.
Has anyone learned anything from Lord of the Rings which is a good analogy of human warfare? Sheesh.
Humans have a right to bear an arm. It falls directly in line with laws of nature when it comes to human aggression.
End of the fucken discussion.
“Ben Carson’s statements about gun control are difficult to fathom….The Jews of Germany constituted less than 1 percent of the country’s population. It is preposterous to argue that the possession of firearms would have enabled them to mount resistance against a systematic program of persecution implemented by a modern bureaucracy, enforced by a well-armed police state, and either supported or tolerated by the majority of the German population.”
What's so preposterous? At least they'd have a fighting chance, no? At least some could save themselves while taking out some Nazis, no?
Honestly, I don't get this quote at all. Indeed, I find it somewhat unconscionable. He's basically saying they were doomed so why fight? It's insane as it is immoral.
Since when is it 'preposterous' for people to be armed? That they constituted only 1% of the population doesn't follow they shouldn't be armed because 'bigger force' in front of them. It's irrelevant to the principle and right to self-defense. So any minority should not be armed? Is this what he's saying?
If this be so, why should the American revolutionaries had been armed? What about Hungarians and Poles who protested communism? Why bother because the Soviets had all the guns, right? Why should the Kurds be armed, right?
The only preposterous notion I see here comes from the professor.
The 2A is not about hunting or militias or anything like that. It's exactly what it's meant to be. The right for people to bear arms because the idea of government tyranny is the rule and not the exception in world history.
Those who argue otherwise ignore or rewrite this tidbit about human history.
***
Another way to look at this is the hypothetical scenario where the houses on your street decide to come get your stuff, have you no right to defend yourself with arms?
History is but about attacks on villages, castles, kingdoms etc.
Has anyone learned anything from Lord of the Rings which is a good analogy of human warfare? Sheesh.
Humans have a right to bear an arm. It falls directly in line with laws of nature when it comes to human aggression.
End of the fucken discussion.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Mysterious and anonymous comments as well as those laced with cyanide and ad hominen attacks will be deleted. Thank you for your attention, chumps.