\n\nArmaLite\u00e2\u0080\u0099s ads broke the unwritten rules. Instead of highlighting the hero\u00e2\u0080\u0099s body, they emphatically made him a warrior. Hence Franceschini\u00e2\u0080\u0099s objection to an \u00e2\u0080\u009carmed David,\u00e2\u0080\u009d even though every David is armed. \u00e2\u0080\u009cDavid famously used a slingshot to defeat the giant Goliath, making the gun imagery, thought up by the Illinois-based ArmaLite, even more inappropriate,\u00e2\u0080\u009d writes Emma Hall in Ad Age.
\nTo the contrary, the gun imagery, while incongruously machine-age, was utterly appropriate. David did not use a \u00e2\u0080\u009cslingshot.\u00e2\u0080\u009d He used a sling. As historians of ancient warfare -- and readers of Malcolm Gladwell\u00e2\u0080\u0099s latest book, \u00e2\u0080\u009cDavid and Goliath\u00e2\u0080\u009d -- know, a sling was no child\u00e2\u0080\u0099s toy. It was a powerful projectile weapon, a biblical equivalent of ArmaLite\u00e2\u0080\u0099s wares.
\nNor did Florentine patrons commission statues of David because he looked good without his clothes. They commissioned statues of David because he was a martial hero who had felled an intimidating foe. They made him a beautiful nude to emphasize his heroism, not to disguise his bloody deed. (Donatello\u00e2\u0080\u0099s David has his boot triumphantly on Goliath\u00e2\u0080\u0099s severed head.) Michelangelo\u00e2\u0080\u0099s giant was meant as an inspiration to locals and a warning to would-be invaders. He wasn\u00e2\u0080\u0099t an underwear model. He was a Minuteman. Putting a gun in his hand may look weird, but it\u00e2\u0080\u0099s a lot truer to his original meaning than a souvenir apron.
\n
via Michelangelo's David Has a Right to Bear Arms - Bloomberg View.
\n" }