There is an interesting interview on today's Newshour about the rise of the religious right in the US. One of the interviewees points out that the number of evangelical Christians in the US is declining due to its involvement in religion.
I've found that gunloon comments tend to reinforce my belief that the US needs gun control due to the fact that these people are not responsible and have no idea of what right the Second Amendment was intended on protecting. Add in that the institution of militia is pretty much an anachronism. In fact, the militia was irrelevant at the time of the Revolution (see Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations).
Anyway, we have already seen that the Heller-McDonald decisions have nor resulted in much in roads being made in the field of gun rights. And as the word of Revolution go "if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't going to make with anyone anyhow".
Perhaps saying that a variant of "Political Power comes from the barrel of a gun" will backfire on them as badly as failing to heed that religion and politics should not be intertwined.
And yet, not all gun owners or gun rights advocates are conservative Christians. Many of us are something else entirely.
ReplyDeleteTrue dat, fuckin' idiots, many of you.
ReplyDeleteLaci- The Second Amendment is intended to protect the citizens from a tyrannical government. What exactly is your interpretation?
ReplyDeleteDem- When I first started checking out this blog, I thought your "In your face" style was amusing. Maybe even serving a purpose. After reading numerous comments, I've come to the conclusion that you drew the genetic short straw. However, I do find amusement in your idiocy.
I think that it's difficult to argue that the 2nd Amendment is strictly to ensure that States maintain their militia, if for not other reason than it's the second amendment on the list, right under freedom of speech and religion. I take the interpretation that it was understood that an armed populace was a secure populace. It was also the tradition that in times of trouble, the citizenry would be called upon to take up arms and defend themselves and their town/state/country. I don't think this has changed. Our military fights to defend our national interests, but are forbidden by law from civlian law enforcement. Our police forces are inadequate to prevent crime. Therefore, it falls upon the "locals" to defend themselves in situation where the police can't or won't. Their ability to do that is greatly diminished if they don't have access to firearms. Just my take on it.
ReplyDelete