The idea that the sheer numbers involved is an impediment to the modern demagogue is nonsensical. With modern mass communications, there is no limit to the potential size of the mobs that could be stirred. And with the changes in American demographics, including the flood of immigrants, legal and illegal, from South of the border; millions and millions of people with no tie to the heritage of limited Government based upon individual responsibility and a level of freedom not ordinarily seen in other lands; we are far more vulnerable to tyranny than ever before in our history. The Second Amendment--and the fundamental common sense principle behind it, which is the inherent right of the individual to protect himself and what is his--is more necessary today, than ever before in our history. (See The Right & Duty To Keep & Bear Arms.)
Some of the writers' comments on gun related deaths are easily answered. A stronger argument could be made for banning private ownership of motor vehicles. But what stands out, whether he is talking about accidents, suicides or homocides, is his lack of respect for the unalienable rights of the individual. This whole, long and contrived verbal argument against freedom, almost shouts out his contempt for true individualism.
If the goal is to protect people from themselves, then why not ban sugar--I won't say ban tobacco, because those bent upon stamping out the last vestiges of American Indian culture have almost done that already. But why not ban Television, electrical appliances in general, swimming pools, etc.. None of those accepted attributes of modern living have so elementally essential a role as that which goes to the right to defend oneself and what is one's own.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
The cornerstone of all leftist philosophy.