The Dangerous Disingenuity of America’s Wannabe Gunslingers

cartoon, Ted Rall, assault rifles
Photo credit: Ted Rall for WhoWhatWhy
Reading Time: 1 minute

Those who defend the rights of regular Americans to own weapons of war often say that this is necessary to defend the US against tyranny or a foreign enemy. They conveniently leave out the fact that they would still be hopelessly outgunned if such an authoritarian regime ever were in charge.

Their argument is really just an attempt to hold on to their toys since experts believe such guns are not very useful for home defense. Given the fact that one use for such weapon is frivolous and the other is far-fetched, is the steady drum-beat of mass shootings worth it?

Where else do you see journalism of this quality and value?

Please help us do more. Make a tax-deductible contribution now.

Our Comment Policy

Keep it civilized, keep it relevant, keep it clear, keep it short. Please do not post links or promotional material. We reserve the right to edit and to delete comments where necessary.

print

5 responses to “The Dangerous Disingenuity of America’s Wannabe Gunslingers”

  1. Vegas Vic says:

    …was going to write up a clever, fact-filled comment to demolish the author’s statement (especially re: so-called ‘experts’ who know what type of firearm is best for me to protect my home and family), but it really seems pointless to try to argue against someone who is obviously clueless about American history, the history of authoritarian regimes, and firearm ownership in general. Moving along…

  2. Ed says:

    If you’ll take a moment to re-read the first part of ‘The Declaration of Independence’, the logic behind the 2nd Amendment and the reason why the government should not be allowed to have a monopoly on modern firearms becomes quite clear. When governments go bad, you basically have three choices: submit, flee or fight. The founders fought.

  3. Scarlett says:

    Fortunately for everyone, this opinion represents a small minority of Americans.