Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitchens
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I really don't see why the views of people who had no concept of an urban society should be treated as sacrosanct.
I mean hey, if you want to slap the beliefs of men who's vision of America was nothing but neat little squares of farmland onto contemporary society, that's cool. Just don't act so surprised when some are a little skeptical.
|
They've certainly been deified by some, but that doesn't mean the other extreme is valid, either. The vision of the Founding Fathers has set a foundation for American government for over two hundred years; it is not irrelevant today.
The point of the matter doesn't really change with time, with technology, or with society. The point of the Second Amendment is that a person has a fundamental right to defend himself, and the government does not have the right to revoke that capability. It's a matter of independence, of self-determination, and yes -- of thwarting tyrannical government. Red Dawn isn't coming, and if the government wants you dead, you're dead. But government going door to door to pull minorities and political dissenters out of their homes to be shot, as happened in multiple countries under multiple regimes in 20th century Europe? That's not happening with a well-armed populace.
Does that mean that everyone should be allowed to purchase napalm at Walgreens? Of course not. The specifics are very much an open discussion, one that has unfortunately been dominated mostly by extremists.
But it's far too simplistic to point to murder rates and say 'hey, they're doing it right, lower murder rate'. We could decrease our murder rate by banning guns, sure. We could also increase our life expectancy by banning soda -- and motorcycles. The question becomes one of liberty and the scope of government.