Guns. Again.

A few days ago, the Oklahoman ran a letter arguing that we should have guns because, well, the colonists did and that's what won us the Revolutionary War. It is truly one of the dumbest arguments someone could possibly make in favor of gun ownership in the moden world. As I noted then, a fundamental change from 1776 was the introduction of something called the United States Armed Forces, which is probably slightly more effective at repelling invasions than a few middle aged, out of shape guys armed with hunting rifles. 

Still, that didn't stop Eric Miller of Oklahoma City from writing today:

Some people seem to think that only the military should be allowed certain weapons. They forget that the minutemen and other militia (citizens) who fought the war for independence had weapons that were typically superior to those of the British military. Also, cannons were available to the militia; otherwise, our Founders wouldn't have been able to use them against the British.

First off: Holy crap, this guy is writing at the 6th grade level. For real: saying "They had X; otherwise, they wouldn't have been able to use them" betrays some seriously remedial-level logic. Obviously, it's difficult to use something IF THAT SOMETHING IS NOT AVAILABLE TO YOU.

Second: WHAT IS HIS POINT? That because some colonists in 1776 had enough guns we all should now?!? Does he think that ordinary citizens are going to be able to contribute to a military conflict involving the United States?!? That's just asinine.

It's amazing that the Oklahoman continues to run these sorts of letters: not only are the points expressed entirely stupid, letters like Mr. Millers are so clumsy that it is almost embarrassing to read.