Silver Bullet
New member
As usual, these kinds of reports inspire me ... to throw in a little extra in my next donation to the NRA.
Apparently we've won with a twist...
- Thread starter MoW
- Start date
Dan Rodricks cites this "scholar" Paul Fussell, who says that we gun owners all better watch out, because our gun ownership makes us members of the militia, and we may be called to serve, to "march on Tehran."
How incorrect and ignorant can this loser be? (Or the loser who quotes him?)
OWNING THE GUNS does not make an able-bodied man a member of the militia:
BEING AN ABLE-BODIED MAN is what makes a person a member of the militia.
So he should be giving his warning even to simpering elitist anti-gun urbanite twits, just the same as to us gun-totin' yokels: we ALL would stand to be conscripted into the militia to "march on Tehran," whether we own guns or not!
-azurefly
How incorrect and ignorant can this loser be? (Or the loser who quotes him?)
OWNING THE GUNS does not make an able-bodied man a member of the militia:
BEING AN ABLE-BODIED MAN is what makes a person a member of the militia.
So he should be giving his warning even to simpering elitist anti-gun urbanite twits, just the same as to us gun-totin' yokels: we ALL would stand to be conscripted into the militia to "march on Tehran," whether we own guns or not!
-azurefly
I heard him last week in the wake of the shootings in Lancaster county PA.
He was on that like a bum on a ham sandwich. No facts, just more emotional drivel. When facts were presented, he said something to the effect of he didn't want to hear it.
Personally, I would like to see wbal fire his sorry butt. I think they are trying to balance their on air personalities with an injection of feel good liberalism.
He is one of reasons that Maryland is no longer the "free state".
He was on that like a bum on a ham sandwich. No facts, just more emotional drivel. When facts were presented, he said something to the effect of he didn't want to hear it.
Personally, I would like to see wbal fire his sorry butt. I think they are trying to balance their on air personalities with an injection of feel good liberalism.
He is one of reasons that Maryland is no longer the "free state".
There has to be something more constructive that we can say about all this besides, "This guy's a moron." So, here goes:
The problem with this guy's basic assumptions is that SOMEHOW, prior to the invention of the firearm, people managed to kill each other. In fact, back before the invention of the firearm, the world was a pretty brutal place. Now that the firearm has been invented and widely dispursed, you go to places like Liberia and Sierra Leone, and you see that without ready availability of guns, the world is STILL a pretty brutal place. In other words, no matter where you go, no matter how many guns there are, there are ALWAYS going to be people who want to kill other people.
Now! Are guns on the streets a threat to the police? You betcha! Are guns a threat to local safety? Oh yeah! Does the availability of a gun grant anyone the ability to wreak havoc on their community? Sure it does! And, that's EXACTLY why the 2nd Amendment is so critical. The right to bear arms grants us the ability to take action against WHATEVER people are trying to kill other people, be it some lawless group, or be it some renegade protected by the guise of official authority who attempts to use the power of his corrupt office to abuse the people. (The threat to liberty anywhere is a threat to liberty everywhere.)
So, in response, I say, yes. The world is a dangerous place. And I, for one, would rather be armed than to trust everyone in the whole world to remain disarmed. (See North Korea.)
The problem with this guy's basic assumptions is that SOMEHOW, prior to the invention of the firearm, people managed to kill each other. In fact, back before the invention of the firearm, the world was a pretty brutal place. Now that the firearm has been invented and widely dispursed, you go to places like Liberia and Sierra Leone, and you see that without ready availability of guns, the world is STILL a pretty brutal place. In other words, no matter where you go, no matter how many guns there are, there are ALWAYS going to be people who want to kill other people.
Now! Are guns on the streets a threat to the police? You betcha! Are guns a threat to local safety? Oh yeah! Does the availability of a gun grant anyone the ability to wreak havoc on their community? Sure it does! And, that's EXACTLY why the 2nd Amendment is so critical. The right to bear arms grants us the ability to take action against WHATEVER people are trying to kill other people, be it some lawless group, or be it some renegade protected by the guise of official authority who attempts to use the power of his corrupt office to abuse the people. (The threat to liberty anywhere is a threat to liberty everywhere.)
So, in response, I say, yes. The world is a dangerous place. And I, for one, would rather be armed than to trust everyone in the whole world to remain disarmed. (See North Korea.)
I disagree. Having him on with guys like Chip Franklin, Ron Smith, and Bruce Elliott makes them seem more reasonable. Although I may not like to hear what he has to say, I feel that knowing what my adversaries are thinking helps me to better define and defend my views. I would much rather have an attempt at balance, like WBAL has, than the lineup of Republican mouthpieces that WMAL has from noon to midnight.
btw, I appologize to the people who don't live around here and have no idea who I'm talking about.
