That’s why all the Taliban came out and surrendered, begging for mercy, and our troops are marching home to victory parades just like in 1945.
There are plenty of fallacies, but an obvious one from the excerpt is that the ammo was bought for federal domestic law enforcement.
Wow! Amazing similar to what the constitution says. Dumbass.
It is not the regular military establishment we should fear. It is the clandestine army that is being built from elements of the Homeland Security teams, the Black Panthers that are not subject to prosecution, and the elements of the various administrative divisions that have “enforcement” capabilities. The CIA has always been held suspect by the more militant leftists, but now it is THEIR CIA. And FBI. And BATF. And even to some degree, the Border Patrol and ICE teams.
It’s not paranoia if they really are tracking you in preparation to hunting you down.
The article reminds me of the type of thinking and reasoning that most of us used to do when we were 14 year olds.
That would be friendly fire.
He did quite a bit more than that - he fought alongside them in battle. This guy teaches political science?
It seems almost cruel to remind Professor Tierney that cognitive dissonance does not consist of two or more of his stereotypes conflicting with one another. He appears to think it incompatible for conservatives to at once support the military that they may be fighting shortly and the guns over which they will be fighting them. A very slight reformulation in the interest of accuracy might disabuse him of this confusion: conservatives respect both their freedom to keep and bear arms and the military that is sworn to protect it. There, was that so difficult?
Worse from the straw-man point of view is the revelation that some conservatives actually (gasp!) are service members and veterans! Why, we must just be so conflicted we don't know what to do with ourselves, but I'm sure that Professor Tierney will set us right. Good God, The Atlantic paid money for this drivel?
Another irrelevant bleat from yet another pointy-headed college type who’s never done anything in his entire life except sit in a library reading books and writing pointless articles.
It’s sad, in a way, that each crop of new gun grabbers seems to recycle the stupid “arguments”, thinking that they’ve come up with a novel, and dispositive line of reasoning that proves the pro-freedom side wrong.
In this case it’s a variant of the “you can’t fight the US military with a rag-tag group of civilians armed with puny AR-15’s”.
Which I’d be willing to stipulate, just to shut them up for a second. The point being, I’ve never heard a pro-gun Patriot talk about fighting the US military (in fact, a huge percentage of us gun nuts are either active duty, veterans, or part of military and law enforcement families).
No, the tyrants by and large don’t tend to wear kevlar helmets. They wear business suits, and sit in wood-paneled rooms, and stand before microphones and shred the constitution and our God-given freedom with their lying honeyed words.
Which is a good thing, because those cats, them, we can fight.
It’ll come to that before the end, but it would be refreshing if the other side would stop with the straw men.
Ping
I don’t know any veterans who own guns and are concerned about the possibility of having to fight them one day. However, I know several who seem a bit concerned over DHS and the militarized law enforcement.
A lady walking alone at night targeted by a rapist is 1/300,000,000th of this country under attack. The military, police, et al are not there when she needs defending.
The 2nd Amendment may be read another way and make perfect sense, to wit: “despite the presence of a standing army, the people still have the right to own, carry, and use as appropriate any and all weapons.” The Founding Fathers disliked standing armies as they tend toward misadventures and oppression, but realized they were a necessary evil and laid out principles for constructing a nation-protecting military. Recognizing some would construe the existence of a standing army as obviating the need for an armed populace (or any other excuse for disarming the people), the clear right to self-armament was enumerated.
“The problem is that most of those making this argument also strongly support a massive U.S. military — exactly the behemoth we must be armed against.” - article
So:
The US should have sufficient armed forces to deter threats and to conduct war, should the need arise.
-and-
The citizens of the USA have the right to bear arms to protect themselves and the state from all enemies, foreign or domestic.
Are somehow inconsistent thoughts or “gobbledygook” according to the Atlantic?
It just sounds like common sense to me...