I have already posted a parody on politics and religion and thanks, you folks who took me seriously. But now let’s talk seriously about GUNS and politics. Where I live we don’t think that the average citizen should be trusted with fire-arms, except properly licensed and controlled single-shot rifles and shotguns for hunting. Of course this leaves the guns in the hands of criminals and the State (police and army). And it’s true that, where seconds count, the police are minutes, if not hours away. But in all debates on the 2nd Amendment, sooner or later someone points out that its main purpose is not to protect life and property against criminals but to guard your liberty against an oppressive and tyrannical government. Tell me, just how is this meant to work in practice? An all-out insurrection against the State would lead to Civil War and on a smaller scale to the siege at Waco. Clearly this defense is only effective at the level of the individual citizen. So if you tell Joe Six-pack that one of the Presidential candidates is Commie muslim terrorist out to destroy the country, doesn’t the 2nd Amendment give him the right, maybe even the duty, to do something about it? It gives political groups the right to assert their ideologies by force if necessary. It is an anachronism, which, coupled with the rhetoric of the past months is a danger to democracy.
