Or does it? What about the Court’s nod to “reasonable restrictions”? Clear as mud, if you ask me. Or Mayor Richard Daley, Or Aaron Zelman, founder of the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, who called the decision “half assed.” It seems strange that NRA chief lobbyist Chris W. Cox would adopt such a celebratory tone, as all the organization’s fund raising efforts are alarmist in nature. Perhaps his statement was some kind of warning shot across gun control advocates’ bow. Anyway, the fighting is in rounds (so to speak). The enemy may be playing rope-a-dope, but watch out. He’s got a mean left hook. Metaphorically speaking.

3 Responses to NRA on McDonald: “This decision makes absolutely clear that the Second Amendment protects the God-given right of self-defense for all law-abiding Americans, period.”

  1. And yet the second amendment does not mention self-defense. Or deer hunting. Or target practice.

    It does say something about the security of a free state. Maybe the NRA ought to re-read it. Just once. The founding fathers were radically suggesting that a free and armed population was the best prevention against totalitarian government. That's why we can keep and bear arms. Not against criminals, but against governments that are hostile to the citizens.

    • But, again, how effective are rifles and pistols against armored vehicles, heavy artillery and air support? Better than nothing, but not by much.

  2. Try asking the insurgents in Iraq. Or the Vietcong. It's not a winning strategy by any means, but it can be effective. Planes need to land, tanks need to refuel, artillery needs to reload. This areas are all vulnerable. I'm not saying a handful of rednecks could withstand a frontal assault. I'm saying the combined citizenry, armed, can not be forcibly put under martial law. That requires boots on the ground, and that's the equalizer.

    I'm not advocating a violent rebellion against our government. I'd hate to fire at, or be shot by, our own soldiers. Armed conflict in my neighborhood would be a nightmare. I'm completely for changing the system by voting. But that doesn't change the intent of the second amendment.

    Reverse the position. You're a general of U.N. troops assigned to "pacify" Houston and the surrounding suburbs. And you're told to expect that 2 out of every 3 houses will contain firearms. Not just any firearms, but potentially modern military style weapons, high powered sniper rifles, high capacity magazines, unknown amounts of ammo, even gun powder, explosives and electronics necessary to make high-end IEDs. Tanks and planes won't help you here. How do you enforce martial law now?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *