| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Land of the Free |
| The Huguenots and the Second Amendment |
| 2016-01-11 |
| What I learned from yesterday’s Ask Me Anything was that overwhelmingly, Ricochet wants to know more about the history of the Huguenots and their relationship to the Second Amendment. (Or, at least, Tenacious D does.) When Ben Carson suggested that an armed populace would have been better able to resist the Holocaust, he walked off the history cliff for two reasons. The first was his failure to appreciate what it took to defeat a modern engine of death like the Nazi war machine — one that rolled over armies comprised of millions of trained soldiers with guns, planes, tanks, and artillery in Czechoslovakia, Austria, Poland, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Romania, Serbia, Yugoslavia, and Greece, and often did so in a matter of days. He also missed a chance to explain to Wolf that in all likelihood, the Founders were thinking about the extermination of a European religious minority. But that minority wasn’t the Jews — it was the Huguenots. |
| Posted by:badanov |
| #7 A super-accurate metaphor that most of the audience doesn't know about would have gone over worse than using the arm the Jews. Most people understand at the very least that even if the Jews would have eventually been slaughtered they would have been able take a few of the bastards with them. Folks understand that on a gut level. I don't think it lost Carson a single vote. Those that complained about the metaphor weren't voting Carson anyway. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2016-01-11 18:43 |
| #6 The siege of La Rochelle. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2016-01-11 12:35 |
| #5 The three musketeers figured in there somewhere.... |
| Posted by: Sven the pelter 2016-01-11 12:27 |
| #4 well the Huguenots of the 16th century did not have very good firearms but neither did their opponents the first practical flintlocks date from the early 17th century The Huguenots were overwhelmed mostly because their opponents were better organized, more numerous and more vicious - probably better armed too but that wouldn't have been decisive without the other factors |
| Posted by: lord garth 2016-01-11 12:16 |
| #3 And not one mention of Jason or the golden fleece...hmmph. |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2016-01-11 11:39 |
| #2 Now, I confess that here my memory is failing me. I can’t remember when, exactly, the policy of disarming all but the Catholic nobility came into effect. But I do remember that it did. Does anyone on Ricochet remember? I know that it happened, but I can’t remember when. So, the central point of the article is not referenced. And Huguenots were definitely not disarmed on St Bartholomew's Day.. And the rest of the article is pure homespun history as well. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2016-01-11 04:16 |
| #1 We all know the background. Very few Americans are aware of just how bad the religious wars of those times were, even if their own ancestors were among those trying to escape European savagery and migrating to take their chances dealing with the native American sauvages. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2016-01-11 01:44 |