doctor paradox

Showing all posts tagged 2a:

First, we have to go all the way back to the Enlightenment Age to remember the profound historical rift opened up between Emotionality and Rationality -- a divide that still rages fiercely in our politics today (even moreso of late, as it is consciously being stoked by Bad Faith actors both externally and internally). Next, we look at how Emotionality has been aggressively gendered since (at least) then: women are the emotional sex, we've been told. Men are the rational, cool-headed arbiters of the Best Decisions -- mythologically, after long periods of research, praxis, and careful deliberation. This allows the impulsive, cowboy, "Men of Action" strain of political derring-do to pass by largely unexamined as maintaining Rationality -- even when the only commonality between the two paradigms is often the possession of a Y chromosome. In other words, typically men get to appear rational even when acting impulsively, while women have no such culturally-accepted Emperor's New Clothes...
If -- as the #2A crowd is wont to say -- the 2nd Amendment is meant as preserving a citizen's right to have firepower on hand to stop an oppressive domestic government, then it would follow that the 2nd Amendment would want individual citizens to possess nuclear technology -- otherwise, the federal government easily has a monopoly on the use of force. Our handguns, rifles, and even semi-automatic stockpiles are nothing in the face of the United States' nuclear arsenal. However, we don't see anybody seriously advocating for the position that individual people ought to have the right to nukes in their homes (and possibly concealed carry?!). Why? Because it is at that point in the thought experiment that the absurdity of the #2A argument is unmasked -- that at some point there is a limit as to how much power to do violence the average citizen needs, so as not to overburden and endanger the safety and security of its citizens. Too much violent firepower threatens the safety and liberty...