I'm pro-2nd amendment, but was listening to Jason Whitlock recently whom believes its a "farce in 2017". His stance is that it was valuable in the the past as it allowed us to defend against the potential of governmental tyranny.
However, in 2017, he believes the general public would have little chance of defense when stacked against the weaponry and technology of the governments of today. Basically, our ownership of AR-15s, would be little more than an annoyance to a governmental take-over.
I've heard this rebuttal against that pro-2nd amendment stance before, but I never really thought about it. There are other pro stances for the right to bear arms other than defense of tyrannical government, but focus on that reason only. I felt my opinion shift ever so slightly when I thought about it. I'm not sure I'd really use that one in a debate.
So, I was curious what you dorks think.
1. Is it actually a fair argument for 2nd amendment in 2017?
2. If yes, why?
However, in 2017, he believes the general public would have little chance of defense when stacked against the weaponry and technology of the governments of today. Basically, our ownership of AR-15s, would be little more than an annoyance to a governmental take-over.
I've heard this rebuttal against that pro-2nd amendment stance before, but I never really thought about it. There are other pro stances for the right to bear arms other than defense of tyrannical government, but focus on that reason only. I felt my opinion shift ever so slightly when I thought about it. I'm not sure I'd really use that one in a debate.
So, I was curious what you dorks think.
1. Is it actually a fair argument for 2nd amendment in 2017?
2. If yes, why?
