There's an article in the Atlantic titled "Why the 'Citizen Militia' Theory Is the Worst Pro-Gun Argument Ever." I can't bypass the captcha and link it but I'm sure you can find it.
I haven't formulated any rebuttals yet but what does Jow Forums think of this?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Is anyone gonna respond?
>the Atlantic
Let me guess, it's gonna be some overly verbose shit written by a college kid with absolutely no life experience sucking his own dick.
Just read it and tell me what you think. I can already see a few problems but it's not just "dur guns are a disease."
I didn't read it as attentively as I should've but I get the impression that the whole basis of his argument is "there was some fucked up shit committed against citizens by other citizens
and not the government during the Civil War therefore arming citizens is not okay".
I don't think I need to explain how simplistic, deterministic and narrow-minded this reasoning is.
That's what I was getting from it as well. Also one of the most ironic nuggets was "Other nations built on English common law have all enacted strict regulation of gun ownership, with no perceptible diminution of political liberties." (See English freedom of speech/press/etc 2018 also you need knife licences)
Yeah that's just an outright lie.
Basically, "not everyone in America agrees with each other 100% therefore citizens having RPGs and missiles does more bad than good"
I got as far as hem mentioning that the holocaust was proof that an armed citizenry couldnt resist the military, as if the jews wouldnt have been better off shooting back.
read the title and tell me you think its anything other than verbose nonsense. What the fuck happened to professionalism in journalism.
>I haven't formulated any rebuttals yet but what does Jow Forums think of this?
en.wikipedia.org
Trivially rebutted.
Journalists are lower than roaches
>expecting critical reasoning from major media
I stopped expecting that a very long time ago m8
Right. I understand his point reiterating some people who say "the holocaust wouldn't have happened if they had guns" is gross speculation but the crux is: would you rather fight and die for your right to life and liberty or just give up. Individual sovereignty is key.
>be me
>WAfag
>some politician came to my door yesterday
>typical I'm tour current senator running again and I'm on your ballots
>decide to grill her
>ask her what her position on 2A/current gun control position is
>"I think there should be more guns in the hands of citizens and gun control being pushed right now is extremely unlawful"
>well then
>talk a little bit
>she hunts/shoots weekly
>"always gotta make time for the simple things"
What an absolute bitchin' old lady. All she cares about is nature, education and guns.
Nice. Hope she wins.
This shit right here
But the problem is, to a lot of people "giving up" means they still live, albeit shittily in a camp until """hope arrives"""
They don't realize it also means getting killed in the same exact instance
>Why the “Why the 'Citizen Militia' Theory Is the Worst Pro-Gun Argument Ever." Is the Worst Anti-Gun Argument Ever
There, I put together a pretty good rebuttal, I’ll hazard a guess and think I put about as much effort in that rebuttal as they did writing the article
who was that? I'll vote for her
Nice quads. Great read.
Elizabeth Scott
skimmed through it.
saw a bunch of straight up historically inaccurate bullshit
disregarded the entire article because the writer is a retard.
I feel like the author fancies himself as clever. His article seems like a "gotcha" to the very premise of the 2A without a logical foundation to base his assertions.
>have corrupt government
>have weapons and consititutional protection to use them to dispose of it
>don't do it
united nations of pussies is more like it
>the Atlantic
>I feel like the author fancies himself as clever
Impossibru
