Replies

The Kurds have always been armed to the teeth. Didn't stop them from being massacred by Saddam.

This is a poor analogy for the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment was envisioned to serve Two purposes.

One: To be the backbone of the armed forces repelling a armed invader. The Citizen Militia would form around a small professional army and chase the invader from our boarders.

Second: If the Central Government should become oppressive the Citizen Militia would organize to depose the oppressive government and restore the usurped liberties of the people. In this case it was assumed that there would never be a large standing army. The founders did not believe in them and warned against them. It is also assumed that the men of the standing army would not carry arms against their families, friends and neighbors to support a despotic government.

For the Kurds the despotic government and the standing army were both composed of an ethnic group which were for many generations involved in blood feuds and religiously fueled hatreds against them. The Kurds also have numerous tribes and Clans that devide them preventing a cohesive structure around which to build a fighting unit. The Kurds do not have the numbers or a cohesive populous to make the analogy work.

The analogy does not hold up to scrutiny.

For the Kurds the despotic government and the standing army were both composed of an ethnic group which were for many generations involved in blood feuds and religiously fueled hatreds against them. The Kurds also have numerous tribes and Clans that devide them preventing a cohesive structure around which to build a fighting unit. The Kurds do not have the numbers or a cohesive populous to make the analogy work.

The analogy does not hold up to scrutiny.

Not to mention the fact that the Kurds, earlier known as the Medes, were a world power along with the Persians. ALL their host countries are very cautious about letting them aquire enough foundation to build anything with the potential to become a national entity.

The Founders so feared (with good reason) the establishment of standing armies that, in fact, in the United States, the first full-time organized police departments were formed in New York City in 1845 and shortly thereafter in Boston, not only in response to crime but also to control unrest. This "control of unrest" made the police force from the beginning a political entity, sort of a 'municipal standing army'. Today, law enforcement has become so militarized and so federalized (because of the influx of federal tax money), that they do indeed constitute a "standing army" of sorts. The Waco debacle should have removed all questions about the connection of law enforcement and the military as well put the idea that posse comitatus actually exists.

So now, today, this is the marquee from the NYPD website.

The analogy does not hold up to scrutiny.

True. However, neither does the author's preposterous claim that a half million German Jews could have prevented the Holocaust if they had only been armed.

I fully support the RTKBA. However, I have no delusions that if I had an M-1 tank in the garage it will be any meaningful protection should the US government be taken over by those who with to kill me.