This nonsense first came around in 2013, in a better and more developed form. It's still wrong; militias were used for very many purposes, from resisting Spanish incursions from Florida to protecting settlers from Native American raids. The militia didn't have just one purpose, in other words; it was the most effective security available to a frontier civilization not yet possessing the means for sustaining a large police force, and having very good reasons to suspect the wisdom of maintaining a large standing army.
In an environment in which terrorist violence arises in many contexts and without warning, the militia still plays a role in national self-defense. Even with well-organized and effective police, there is going to be a delay in response. Sometimes -- not last weekend, but very often -- an armed and disciplined citizenry can find and fix such terrorists until the police can respond.
Of course, as you all noted the last time around, gun control really does have demonstrably racist roots. Indeed, the NRA was founded in part to help freedmen defend themselves in the post-war South.
4 comments:
Indeed, what's racist is making up a racist beef where none exists, and the beef manufacturer knows full well that none exists.
Eric Hines
Slightly tangential to the topic, I will say that I noticed in the videos of the Vegas massacre many men standing, looking for someone to react against. It seems, at least amongst country music fans, we may still have a militia.
Al Sharpton and the Jacksons like racism because it is profitable. Not merely because they make it up where it doesn't exist.
If people want to understand the relationship between racism and the 2nd Amendment, they should take a look at what happened in the South after Reconstruction when the Jim Crow laws were passed. Among the very first ones was the removal of gun ownership rights from blacks. Proper enforcement of the protection of 2nd Amendment rights *favors* oppressed blacks.
And since the left is so fond of the concept that the government is obligated to pay for indigent persons' rights to things such as housing, healthcare, abortions, etc. - which are nowhere in the Constitution - it would only be consistent for the government to pay to provide firearms to anyone who cannot afford them.
Post a Comment