Homepage
Newsletter
Search
Updates
About
Adler
Dolhenty
Adventures
Philosophers
Critiques
Glossary
Quotations
Mini-courses
Aquinas
Essays
Philosophy
Politics
Religion
Education
Science
Media
FAQ
Ask
Guestbook
Forum
Bookstore
Emporium
Newsstand
Calendar
Subscribe
Feedback
Tell a friend
Votecaster
Cartoons

Politics Resource Center

Essays, Opinion, & Commentary

Something to Think About Index

Politics Resource Center Main Page


Books about Politics and Current Events in The Radical Academy Bookstore
Click Here for New & Used College Textbooks at Discount Prices

Click Here for College Education Information & Study Resources


Shop Amazon Stores in the Radical Academy

Bookstore
Magazine Outlet
Music Store
Video Store
DVD Store
Computer Store
Camera & Photo Store
Computer/Video Games
Software Store
Outlet Store
Cellular Phones
Toys & Games
Tools & Hardware
Outdoor Living
Consumer Electronics
Kitchen & Housewares
Baby Superstore
Apparel & Accessories
Gourmet Food
Sporting Goods
Jewelry & Watches
Health & Personal Care




Something to Think About

 

A Moral Obscenity

by Gordon Francis Corbett

 

Some people say that our young people have too much "access to firearms." Others proclaim that the Second Amendment only assures us the right to have a militia "well-regulated" by Washington.

Our youngsters' ability to obtain firearms is not a problem. My father taught me to shoot when I was eight years old. I competed on a rifle team in one of the two high schools I attended, and on my university's rifle team as well. None of us shooters committed the least act of violence.

Why? Our parents had taught us right from wrong, and made certain that we understood.

What about the argument concerning the Second Amendment's phrase, "A well-regulated militia?" "Well-regulated" meant "proficient," or "well-drilled." "Militia" means "unorganized militia": everyone from eighteen to forty-five years of age. Moreover, I doubt that the Founding Fathers wanted Washington to "regulate" our militias so that we could shoot a tyrannical government's soldiers properly.

Strip the anti-gunners' arguments of their factual errors and phony reasoning, and what remains is a desire to disarm everyone except the government. If pressed, they say that the Second Amendment is obsolete and should be ignored or repealed.

Many of these people are pacifists. They believe that no human being should ever hurt another, and because they know that thousands of Americans are shot to death every year, they want to forbid our owning firearms.

Baloney. Everyone has a right not to be injured or killed; but, an attacking criminal forfeits that right, allowing his morally intact victim to defend himself. That is why peaceable citizens arm themselves, and why criminals almost never attack victims known to be armed.

The disarmament of individuals, or of nations, is a moral obscenity. We should distrust the judgment of anyone who recommends either.

 


Enrich your life with a book about politics and current events...

Enrich your political & social life with a politics or news magazine...


Something to Think About Index

Politics Resource Center Main Page



-- Top of Page --

[Homepage] [Newsletter] [Search] [Support the Academy] [Link to Us] [Contact the Academy] [Citing Articles from Our Website] [Privacy Policy & Disclaimer]

Copyright 1998-99, 2000-01, & 2002-03 by The Radical Academy. All Rights Reserved.