On the Heels of Aurora... Demagoguery
by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny
On the heels of a lunatic madman's senseless violence in Aurora Colorado Friday the demagoguery has begun in earnest.
I get that sensible gun laws, background checks, and restricting assault weapons has merit and further reasonable discussion is sensible. Even desirable. Most Americans likely have similar thoughts... As long as law abiding citizens always retain the right to bear arms for the lawful purpose of hunting, target practice, and self defense (self defense as a check against government tyranny) is protected. Oh, that's right, I almost forgot. The right is already protected, by the U.S. Constitution. But that will not deter the more extreme anti firearm enthusiasts in their pursuit to re-interpret the Constitution in their attempts to take firearms out of the hands of law abiding citizens entirely. But I digress.
Apparently there are some that have decided President Obama, Mitt Romney, and the NRA have blood on their hands, Of course this explicitly and implicitly means President Obama and Mitt Romney, as well as the NRA bear responsibility for the Colorado massacre. Call it as you see it. It certainly deserves everyone's reasonable and rational consideration.
Be sure to read more on this discussion here and here.
Two views. Both properly understood, and by working together on this issue, improved public safety and the retention of firearm ownership can be assured. To ignore either view is foolish and will render less than the desired results.
What say you?
Via: Memeorandum
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny
On the heels of a lunatic madman's senseless violence in Aurora Colorado Friday the demagoguery has begun in earnest.
I get that sensible gun laws, background checks, and restricting assault weapons has merit and further reasonable discussion is sensible. Even desirable. Most Americans likely have similar thoughts... As long as law abiding citizens always retain the right to bear arms for the lawful purpose of hunting, target practice, and self defense (self defense as a check against government tyranny) is protected. Oh, that's right, I almost forgot. The right is already protected, by the U.S. Constitution. But that will not deter the more extreme anti firearm enthusiasts in their pursuit to re-interpret the Constitution in their attempts to take firearms out of the hands of law abiding citizens entirely. But I digress.
Apparently there are some that have decided President Obama, Mitt Romney, and the NRA have blood on their hands, Of course this explicitly and implicitly means President Obama and Mitt Romney, as well as the NRA bear responsibility for the Colorado massacre. Call it as you see it. It certainly deserves everyone's reasonable and rational consideration.
Be sure to read more on this discussion here and here.
Two views. Both properly understood, and by working together on this issue, improved public safety and the retention of firearm ownership can be assured. To ignore either view is foolish and will render less than the desired results.
What say you?
Via: Memeorandum
I say the demagogues exhibit dangerous thinking.
ReplyDeleteIf they were able to emasculate the 2nd Amendment and severely restrict our rights, would they then turn to the First Amendment in order to ban "dangerous" speech?
What they don't want to face is that if you could wave a magic wand and make all guns disappear, there would still be mass killings.
Driving into a crowd of people is easy. As I said at Shaw's place, I won't give details, but that man could have easily incinerated the entire theater with materials he carried in his hands with one trip from the car.
A bomb or hand grenade? That's very efficient.
Take away guns, and sick minds will find other ways to carry out their sick plans.
This is true.
DeleteWhat must be done in our "modern civilized" society is for both extremes to dig further and determine a just way for this debate to be resolved.
It sure as hell doesn't mean taking away the right of firearm ownership.
I don't understand what some people don't get about the responsibility of the government to regulate the militia. It's right there in the 2nd Amendment, but it seems to completely elude them. As for the literal intent of the framers, these are very different times, and that intent is simply moot today. There is no number or types of arms any man could gather to protect himself from the possible tyranny of the strongest police and military state ever assembled. It's just stupid to look at the 2nd Amendment that way.
ReplyDeleteThe conservatives want it both ways, a ridiculous, omnipresent, massive military/police state, and then the right to defend ourselves from that very state. Stupid. Just stupid.
When I see cons calling for the reduction of the military/police state, then maybe I'll take them at their word that they really care about the intent of the 2nd Amendment. Until then, they are to be mockingly derided.
JMJ
as i have often said in regards to the use of statistical evidence, don't confuse studies of correlation with studies of cause. to do so will inevitably lead to false conclusions and to enacting solutions that will not solve the problem
ReplyDeleteI remember after the Arizona shootings you had people like Paul Krugman and Markos Moulitsis trying to blame Sarah Palin for it. So, no, it really doesn't surprise me one iota that we also have opportunistic a-holes this time around, either, ON BOTH SIDES.
ReplyDelete"as i have often said in regards to the use of statistical evidence, don't confuse studies of correlation with studies of cause. to do so will inevitably lead to false conclusions and to enacting solutions that will not solve the problem"
ReplyDeletei.e.; You can't show lax gun laws reduce crime in general.
JMJ
There is no solving the problem. There are steps that can help.
ReplyDeleteYeah Jersey, anybody who doesn't see things your way is stupid, just stupid...
ReplyDeleteSo professor, how would you "regulate the militia?"
The police state thing is a myth. I can't recall the last time the cops harassed me.... because they never did. I have made the decision to commit no crimes. And it is very easy.
ReplyDelete"So professor, how would you "regulate the militia?"
ReplyDeleteVery carefully, constitutionally, and democratically.
dmarks, just because something doesn't directly, in your face, effect you, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Jesus, man, you're loony.
JMJ
Looney is a matter of perception jmj. dmarks may not always be right, but his observations are far from looney.
DeleteWell, JMJ has a point, as all I offered was a personal anecdote. But it applies to everyone I know, and read about, where in the vast majority of cases no one gets brutalized by the cops unless they do something pretty outrageous.
ReplyDeleteSure, bad cops exist, and so do bad incidents. But to call this a 'police state' and thus put it on a par with North Korea perhaps, if anything is loony, really is loony.