[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I remember Paul Phillips wrote what I thought was a very good blog entry on this subject a while back, one that, honestly, changed my mind a little.
(digs up link)
ah, here we go:
http://extempore.livejournal.com/180946.html
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think that link offers any brilliant revelations, and I'm surprised that that argument can change anyone's mind. If it changed your mind, I guess you just hadn't given it enough thought. So, while I agree with most of it in principle, I do question the effectiveness of an individual's right to bear arms.
When the constitution was written, sure, a well armed populace would have just about been on an even keel with the government in terms of fighting power. But, today, if it ever came to a point where citizens were forced to defend themselves against the governement with weapons,I think firearms would be little more than an impedance. Paul says, "Mass exterminations are not possible against an armed populace. That is why the people are always legally disarmed first." I don't know if I agree with this. I think a more accurate statement might be, "Mass exterminations are much more difficult against an armed populace. That is why the people are always legally disarmed first."
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. Paul needs to get his head in the twenty first century. An armed populace might have been a significant deterrent to tyranny in 1880, and maybe even in 1935, but not in the modern world.
[/ QUOTE ]
