Yeah I saw that - good example of cherry picking, and elitist paranoia that proles who dont agree with the "party line" might be armed and cause problems.

Also, many arguments in addition to being poorly rooted in *contextual fact are also disingenuous. Ex: Talking about Jews and the 3rd Reich - its not German Jews that are typically being referred to but Austrian and especially Polish Jews. Most notably the Warsaw Ghetto Jews which in fact performed a failed uprising once they were able to obtain some weaponry - of course the weaponry obtained was insufficient and too little too late.

Another major failing of this silly article is the unfounded assumption that future resistance would not have any underlying political or support structure. The author "claims" that such would not be the case in the future and violence would be random, and cites historical examples of inappropriate violence as if making those citations furthers any particular point.

The fact is the Founders were pretty clear in why people had the right to bear arms. There really is not any serious historical debate on the topic, as long as you do not consider silly liberal historical revisionists attempts as serious - which I do not.

I find it interesting that the Atlantic reached *across the Atlantic to Moscow and found an elitist Russian 1%er to launch this broadside on the rights and capabilities of Americans.

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)