Reply #25: first, forgive me for not making sense there [View All]

[iverglas]

I said:

Actually, the notion that a powerful modern nation needs to have its population armed to the teeth to defend against insurrection or invasion is rather unassailable, hence the conclusion that your Second Amendment is "obsolete and irrelevant".

When of course I meant that the notion that a powerful modern nation etc. etc. is rather untenable, or some other variation on that sentence that would have conveyed the intended meaning.


People have attitudes toward other people for reasons: self-defense is one of them. You see this attitude in these posts.

Whew, talk about not making sense. Sorry, can't make head nor tail of that one.


Frankly, the "feared, loathed and hated" have more ability to defend themselves now than in my lifetime, with the end of racist gun-control laws, esp. in the South. Unfortunately, the "loathed" poor in big cities often are left without the tools of self-defense.

Yes, except I was talking about something actually real. The feared, loathed and hated as imaginary bogeymen, the ones who are out to git ya, against whom the regular folks need to defend themselves.


Incidentally, your mall example implies the unpopularity of extreme pacifism.

Uh, yes. What did you imagine it was supposed to mean? You dragged in some imaginary "extreme pacifism" position that would preclude self-defence and that is apparently in favour in some quarters, and I said your cast of characters was made of straw.


A "powerful modern nation" is a reason for the RKBA in general and the militia in particular. BTW, those running a "powerful modern nation" often don't want its "population armed to the teeth," as we have seen. This was anticipated by the Framers.

Ah, they were an omniscient bunch of dead rich white guys, weren't they just?

"As we have seen". If we're wearing those funny specs, I presume.


I wonder why you didn't address the over-reliance by "modern liberals" on government agencies and bureaus to defend the population?

You mean, why I didn't address your idiosyncratic characterization of a situation, with which I don't agree?

I wonder.