The article by Mark Nucklos, a teacher at Lomonosov Moscow State University School and at the Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, exposes the ineffectiveness of one of the most widespread and widely accepted pro-gun arguments by the pro gun advocates. It tries and pin points the loopholes in the ‘Citizen Militia’ theory, which the pro gun people talk about of very seriously and commonly when defending their right to posses guns. The author comes up with some very important and vital points during the course of article to prove that the argument is totally baseless and weightless.
/>
First and foremost he talks about how American society and democracy has evolved over the years and hardly bears any resemblance to the America of 18th and 19th century. He, based on various factors, calls the chances of any kind of tyranny by American government very remote and even if that were to happen, he quite clearly points out that citizens armed with small weapons and guns would never be able to take on the world’s most powerful armed forces.
The second most important point was the discussion of two shaky pillars that the pro gun advocates often use to defend the ‘Citizen Militia’ theory. The first pillar, often used by academicians and lawyers refers to the common law in the English past that allowed a constitutional right to its citizens to bear arms. The second pillar finds less support amongst the intellectuals and is based on the slippery supposition that had citizens been better armed the atrocities on the Jewish population by Germany could have been avoided. The logic in itself is speculative and implausible to say the least. It is indeed believed that Hitler was pro gun too but the gun control legislation on Germany was the effect of Treaty of Versailles that was not passed by Nazis. Indeed in 1938, under Hilter, the acquisition of rifles and shotguns was deregulated (Miles, 2013).
Moreover, as per the author, Guerrilla warfare or unorganized civil wars without proper command and leadership have never yielded desired results and more than often, have failed. It was primarily due to the organized colonial arms that America gained independence as the militias could only kill or wound roughly 250 redcoats, a very insignificant figure (History 2013). Using this premise author claims that armed Americans without any central leadership would do more harm than good.
The article is a very intelligent piece of writing that proves what ever it claims in a very factual, objective and practical manner. It takes on each and every aspect of the argument head on and either proves it wrong or factually incorrect. It shows that the argument is as baseless in the present day American society as it was in the historical times. By producing excerpts from the interviews of senators and parliamentarians and discussing the famous District of Columbia v. Heller case in which the jury stated that the right to bear arms was not absolute and that some restrictions could be applied to it (CaseBriefs 2008), the author established his point beyond doubt.
The article helps me form a very intelligent opinion in such an important and widely debated topic and indeed helps me understand that every argument has a counter-argument. It not only helps me shape an opinion but enables and empowers me to defend myself when faced with a debate on the topic.
The article relates very well to the present day or current society as it discusses the relevance of the argument in the context of today’s American society. It talks about the vivid mindsets of Americans across the society and the constant degradation of tolerance and faith for each other and terms it the most significant reason that ‘such’ a heavily armed citizenry would be incapable of safeguarding the liberty in America.
I completely agree with the position that the write or the author takes. Armed citizens are a bigger danger to our Liberty than any future tyrannical governments since it infringes upon the most important right of people, the right to live. The author blasts apart the argument in a very unbiased manner and hence draws more faith and attention. He does not base his writing on prejudices but on proven facts and hence stays unbiased to the core.
Articles like this have complete potential and caliber to shape and impact the government policies. Not only does the article present with a reason to force government to change its gun policy but also forces it into drawing new policies to bridge trust deficit with its people which lies at the core of this argument and even forces people to prepare for a war against the government which is ‘FOR THEM, OF THEM, BY THEM’.
Works Cited
CaseBriefs. ”District of Columbia v Heller.”
Casebriefs.com. 7 February 2013. Web. 2008.
< http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constitutional-law/constitutional-law-keyed-to-chemerinsky/the-federal-judicial-power/district-of-columbia-v-heller/>
History. ”Battles of Lexington and Concord.”
History.com. 7 February 2013. Web. 2013.
Miles, Chris. ”Hitler Gun Control Facts: U.S. Pro-Gun Advocates Have More in Common with
Hitler than They Think.”
Policymic. 7 February 2013. Web. 2013.
< http://www.policymic.com/articles/22692/hitler-gun-control-facts-u-s-pro-gun-advocates-have-more-in-common-with-hitler-than-they-think>
