Carson’s recent words are basically restating the purpose of the 2nd Amendment: to ensure the citizens of the United States are always armed and prepared to defend themselves from not only an oppressive government, but also outside threats.
During the Revolutionary War, Minutemen were crucial in their ability to quickly drop their farmer’s hoes and carpenter’s tools and grab their guns, ready to defend their homes against any outside aggression. America’s founding fathers had the foresight to understand that invading Brits or someone who would think himself ruler over the new colonies would not have as much success if standing against an armed public. Afterall, a democracy of the people by the people for the people demands the people are able to ensure their will is what rules.
Seth Rogen’s Twitter outlash against Carson for giving an opinion is asinine and offensive.
Fuck you @RealBenCarson.
— Seth Rogen (@Sethrogen) October 9, 2015
Let us review the Ben Carson quote that has Rogen so inflamed:
“I think the likelihood of Hitler being abler to accomplish his goals would have been greatly diminished if the people had been armed.” – Dr. Ben Carson
Nowhere in that quote does Carson suggest if only people of a certain religion or ethnicity were armed, the tragedy of World War II would not have taken place. Instead, he seems to believe that an armed populace is better able to resist a fascist government takeover.
The tragedy of World War II is a shared experience across many cultures and while the subject is sensitive, an apt academic conversation should certainly evaluate if a growing, hostile force could be combated by a well-armed public. A person whose future job could involve commanding the most powerful military on Earth should give the notion consideration and decide if they agree with it or not.
In the Middle East, ISIS is spreading and the US just had a failed program to arm the general public of Syria to stand against an aggressive threat. Hundreds of thousands of people are fleeing and seeking asylum in nations that do not want them. If these people were armed, would they stand a better chance at resistance?
It seems the current US policy supported by both Republicans and Democrats support that notion, hence the US spending $500 million recently in Syria and billions in past actions to arm and train citizens to defend themselves. Why would the US’ current logic not be considered for World War II?