An online magazine has made a terrific case in favor of the right to bear arms. Was it an NRA publication? Nope. Perhaps one of the conservative magazines such as National Review or American Spectator? Nope. The magazine was actually Slate. Slate? Yes, liberal Slate magazine has published an article making one of the strongest cases in favor of the right of citizens to bear arms that I have seen in a long time.
The strong defense of the Second Amendment came in a speculative Slate article about what would have happened if Germany had attempted to invade the United States during World War II. Author John Mixon correctly pointed out that this would have been an incredibly bad idea. Among the reasons he listed was the fact that Germany had no forward bases in North America from which to launch such an invasion. Also the German supply lines would have been ridiculously long and could easily be cut off.
On top of that, the Wehrmacht was already tied down battling on the Eastern Front. However, the final reason that Mixon gives for why such an attempted German invasion would have failed miserably is one that is sure to upset liberals in a big way:
...everybody had guns. One commonality among the nations conquered by Germany is that private firearms ownership was heavily restricted or simply banned. With no such restrictions here and given the fact that modern combined arms tactics were still in their infancy, it's difficult to see how the Germans would have avoided taking heavy casualties. The Germans would have faced an armed force at least 10 times the size of their invasion force, who were also motivated to ensure that they (the Germans) would lose.
Congratulations for publishing this article, Slate. It is highly deserving of a Second Amendment award.
