I don't think so. Humans can spare themselves of the effects of Darwinism via laws and social norms. Animals cannot, thus liberals do not expect them to. Liberals do not deny the fact that there are differing abilities and aptitudes among humans -  certainly not. 

The hypothetical claim you pose is a farcical one. It assumes the people Pinochet tortured or killed were akin to the Khmer Rouge. From what I gather, a great deal many of those people killed or tortured by Pinochet were innocent. You are arguing that torturing 29,000 was necessary for the avoidance of political Marxism. This is a nonsensical claim made without any evidence.

This does not entail a contradiction. Darwinism is a descriptive theory, not a prescriptive one. Darwinism does not claim that evolution by natural selection and random mutation is good, only that it exists. Darwinism isn't a theory on how the world ought to be, only a theory on how the world is.

Count me out as an exponent of Mr. Pinochet. According to the Washington Post,

First as head of a four-man military junta and then as president, Pinochet served until 1990, leaving a legacy of abuse that took successive governments years to catalogue. According to a government report that included testimony from more than 30,000 people, his government killed at least 3,197 people and tortured about 29,000. Two-thirds of the cases listed in the report happened in 1973.

I'm highly skeptical, to say the least, of the claim that the above was necessary to spare the country of Allende's Marxism. Yes, Pinochet was "dictator lite" compared to most, but this does not extinguish his essence as a dictator.

Thus, I think the real saving grace of a tyrannical government would be the sympathies of military personnel, not the 2nd Amendment.

Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrate not the effectiveness of an insurgency but what happens when rules of engagement constrain military offensiveness like never before. The Air Force could destroy both Iraq and Afghanistan in an afternoon; the reason is did not was because such is prohibited by contemporary rules of engagement. The American people, against a sincerely dictatorial president, would be hopelessly outmaneuvered. 

Cheap response, nothing more.

"This just in. Lots of old people don't like tattoos!"

YOu're welcome.

Gay marriage. Sporks. Cars that park themselves. Where is society headed?

Ok. Therefore, what? To believe in something is a profession of faith? This is nonsense. To believe in something (typically a proposition) is to hold is as true, not to hold it as true without evidence. When did belief and faith,  i.e., belief without evidence, become synonymous?

Precisely.

I'd be quite confident in saying that young Earth creationists qua young Earth creationists are being anti-scientific.

John...what on Earth are you talking about? You're making zero sense.

There you have it, I suppose.

*shaking my head*

Bloody idiot.