Will Wilkinson writes about guns at political events as an introduction to an interesting, brief take on the overcommitment of public resources to protecting that evasive game bird, the American politician. A thoroughly hilarious comment thread ensues, in which a number of offended liberals (I assume) effectively accuse Will of playing Cassius in the future assassination of The Obama. Oh, into what dangers would you lead me, Willkinson, that you would have me seek into myself for that which is not in me?
The liberal argument against the private right to bear arms is made in bad faith. If they wish to more thoroughly curtail the legal possession of firearms, they should seek to amend the Constitution, clarifying the limits of that right. As it is, they are stuck arguing that the Second Amendment does not mean what it means, or, in another popular argument, saying that since modern militaries render armed resistance to state power futile, well, fuck it, Dude, let's go bowling. Other commenters point out that if we learn anything from the latter half of the twentieth century and the first decade of the twenty-first, it is that, duh, insurgency works, and gangs armed with rifles and RPGs can wear down great powers.
I tend to believe that the world could use more assassinations of presidents and potentates. If we are cursed forever to be ruled by such men, let them at least pay for their power by looking over their shoulder from time to time.
UPDATE: I would also like to note, for the record, that in the original Rome--and here is an argument for the thesis that the original is always better than the sequels--most of the best assassinations were carried out by the Secret Service.