Posted: 6/21/2016 11:57:29 AM EDT
|
https://www.creators.com/read/thomas-sowell
Surely murder is a serious subject, which ought to be examined seriously. Instead, it is almost always examined politically in the context of gun control controversies, with stock arguments on both sides that have remained the same for decades. And most of those arguments are irrelevant to the central question: Do tighter gun control laws reduce the murder rate? That is not an esoteric question, nor one for which no empirical evidence is available. Think about it. We have 50 states, each with its own gun control laws, and many of those laws have gotten either tighter or looser over the years. There must be tons of data that could indicate whether murder rates went up or down when either of these things happened. But have you ever heard any gun control advocate cite any such data? I am serious, and don't call me Shirley. |
| Interesting point, but the answer is already out there. There's a reason that gun control advocates always reference "gun" violence instead of general violence. When you just look at general violent crime, stats are pretty neutral across developed countries and the non-urban US. Guns or lack of guns doesn't influence violence. |
|
Quoted:
Oh, I'm quite certain he has, but he is quite correct: The 2nd can be repealed. Quoted:
Quoted:
Overall good article, but I have to wonder at these "intellectuals" that are so flippant with my rights. Just repeal the 2nd Amendment? Wonder if he has read it? The 2nd doesn't grant anything, so the right still exists. |
|
Quoted:
The 2nd doesn't grant anything, so the right still exists. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Overall good article, but I have to wonder at these "intellectuals" that are so flippant with my rights. Just repeal the 2nd Amendment? Wonder if he has read it? The 2nd doesn't grant anything, so the right still exists. Regardless, if the 2nd is repealed, then Congress can pass laws infringing that right and (paraphrasing Riddick in Chronicles of Riddick) "it will be all legal and shit". |
|
Quoted:
Overall good article, but I have to wonder at these "intellectuals" that are so flippant with my rights. Just repeal the 2nd Amendment? Wonder if he has read it? If you like what they want to do with your second rights just wait till you see what they'll do with your first rights, what they'll do with third through ninth , you can forget the 10th's rights those were effectively done away with a century ago. |
My liberal buddy at work swears up and down that you only have a right to use guns for militia purposes, that the militia is a government entity, and that shall not be infringed is moot because the same guys that wrote the Constitution also wrote laws banning the storage of gun powder, concealed carry, carry at Virginia colleges, etc.....all while owning an AR and possibly more guns than I.  |
|
Quoted:
My liberal buddy at work swears up and down that you only have a right to use guns for militia purposes, that the militia is a government entity, and that shall not be infringed is moot because the same guys that wrote the Constitution also wrote laws banning the storage of gun powder, concealed carry, carry at Virginia colleges, etc.....all while owning an AR and possibly more guns than I. It is really a wonderment that some people are smart enough and able to get out of bed in the morning. |
|
Quoted:
The 2nd doesn't grant anything, so the right still exists. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Overall good article, but I have to wonder at these "intellectuals" that are so flippant with my rights. Just repeal the 2nd Amendment? Wonder if he has read it? The 2nd doesn't grant anything, so the right still exists. Everything in this natural world we live in is a "right," until people get involved in defining and regulating it. A.W.D. |
|
Quoted: It is really a wonderment that some people are smart enough and able to get out of bed in the morning. Quoted: Quoted: My liberal buddy at work swears up and down that you only have a right to use guns for militia purposes, that the militia is a government entity, and that shall not be infringed is moot because the same guys that wrote the Constitution also wrote laws banning the storage of gun powder, concealed carry, carry at Virginia colleges, etc.....all while owning an AR and possibly more guns than I. It is really a wonderment that some people are smart enough and able to get out of bed in the morning. He's got a Ph.D. and tends to be fairly objective. He also tries to read multiple sides to the argument. When i told him about Heller he read both opinions and then brought up the storage issues and told me how, even though it says shall not be infringed, people have been infringing on it since day one including those that wrote it. Lately he is hanging on the "a well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state." I ask him why they didn't write The right of the people to keep and bear arms for militia purposes shall not be infringed and he says their language was different back then. I ask him why 5 people in black robes disagreed with him and he says they are wrong. Last night he was reading the Federalist papers and I think he finally gets the purpose of the 2nd... A check against the government... but then he always tells me that we have no chance against them and that it is not reasonable to believe that a gun is going to do anything to check a government with bunker busters, etc. He agrees that we have a right to defend ourselves right not, but that the 2nd does not protect it. |
|
Quoted:
He's got a Ph.D. and tends to be fairly objective. He also tries to read multiple sides to the argument. When i told him about Heller he read both opinions and then brought up the storage issues and told me how, even though it says shall not be infringed, people have been infringing on it since day one including those that wrote it. Lately he is hanging on the "a well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state." I ask him why they didn't write The right of the people to keep and bear arms for militia purposes shall not be infringed and he says their language was different back then. I ask him why 5 people in black robes disagreed with him and he says they are wrong. Last night he was reading the Federalist papers and I think he finally gets the purpose of the 2nd... A check against the government... but then he always tells me that we have no chance against them and that it is not reasonable to believe that a gun is going to do anything to check a government with bunker busters, etc. He agrees that we have a right to defend ourselves right not, but that the 2nd does not protect it. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
My liberal buddy at work swears up and down that you only have a right to use guns for militia purposes, that the militia is a government entity, and that shall not be infringed is moot because the same guys that wrote the Constitution also wrote laws banning the storage of gun powder, concealed carry, carry at Virginia colleges, etc.....all while owning an AR and possibly more guns than I. It is really a wonderment that some people are smart enough and able to get out of bed in the morning. He's got a Ph.D. and tends to be fairly objective. He also tries to read multiple sides to the argument. When i told him about Heller he read both opinions and then brought up the storage issues and told me how, even though it says shall not be infringed, people have been infringing on it since day one including those that wrote it. Lately he is hanging on the "a well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state." I ask him why they didn't write The right of the people to keep and bear arms for militia purposes shall not be infringed and he says their language was different back then. I ask him why 5 people in black robes disagreed with him and he says they are wrong. Last night he was reading the Federalist papers and I think he finally gets the purpose of the 2nd... A check against the government... but then he always tells me that we have no chance against them and that it is not reasonable to believe that a gun is going to do anything to check a government with bunker busters, etc. He agrees that we have a right to defend ourselves right not, but that the 2nd does not protect it. I agree with him... about the 2A not protecting our right to defend ourselves... at least from anything but a tyrannical government. That's what it's there for and the only reason it's there. Whether it is an effective deterrent is beside the point. And yes... I believe that enough people with enough ARs (and cooperation) could damned well defeat an out-of-control federal government making war on its own people. But the best "weapon" for the side of liberty is those in the military who are honorable, and who are pro-2A and believe in the oath they swore to. It seems like over time, more and more ignorant, anti-liberty folks have infiltrated the military. But by and large, most long-term members of the military are still honorable and would not just follow orders to kill and enslave their own citizens. But this is all just conjecture on my part. Only time will tell how it all goes down in the end. |
|
Quoted:
He's got a Ph.D. and tends to be fairly objective. He also tries to read multiple sides to the argument. When i told him about Heller he read both opinions and then brought up the storage issues and told me how, even though it says shall not be infringed, people have been infringing on it since day one including those that wrote it. Lately he is hanging on the "a well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state." I ask him why they didn't write The right of the people to keep and bear arms for militia purposes shall not be infringed and he says their language was different back then. I ask him why 5 people in black robes disagreed with him and he says they are wrong. Last night he was reading the Federalist papers and I think he finally gets the purpose of the 2nd... A check against the government... but then he always tells me that we have no chance against them and that it is not reasonable to believe that a gun is going to do anything to check a government with bunker busters, etc. He agrees that we have a right to defend ourselves right not, but that the 2nd does not protect it. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
My liberal buddy at work swears up and down that you only have a right to use guns for militia purposes, that the militia is a government entity, and that shall not be infringed is moot because the same guys that wrote the Constitution also wrote laws banning the storage of gun powder, concealed carry, carry at Virginia colleges, etc.....all while owning an AR and possibly more guns than I. It is really a wonderment that some people are smart enough and able to get out of bed in the morning. He's got a Ph.D. and tends to be fairly objective. He also tries to read multiple sides to the argument. When i told him about Heller he read both opinions and then brought up the storage issues and told me how, even though it says shall not be infringed, people have been infringing on it since day one including those that wrote it. Lately he is hanging on the "a well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state." I ask him why they didn't write The right of the people to keep and bear arms for militia purposes shall not be infringed and he says their language was different back then. I ask him why 5 people in black robes disagreed with him and he says they are wrong. Last night he was reading the Federalist papers and I think he finally gets the purpose of the 2nd... A check against the government... but then he always tells me that we have no chance against them and that it is not reasonable to believe that a gun is going to do anything to check a government with bunker busters, etc. He agrees that we have a right to defend ourselves right not, but that the 2nd does not protect it. I learned a very long time ago that not everyone who is educated is smart. My dad, who didn't go past HS was one of the smartest people I've known, I can think of more than a few college professors that if you took them out of their natural element (the university campus) had neither the common sense nor the intelligence to stay alive on their own for very long. |
|
The only reason libs cling so tenaciously to the gun control issue is that it's the only one which is race neutral, and doesn't give rise to all sorts of questions that they're uncomfortable with addressing.
This is why facts don't sway them - they can't give it up. It's literally all they have. Liberals are incapable of supporting any crime fighting measure that might possibly be effective. Blacks and hispanics commit the majority of violent crime. Any crime fighting strategy (other than gun control) is going to impact them disproportionately. Of course, liberals believe that disparate impact is proof of racism. Any effective crime-fighting strategy will ultimately be decried as racist by liberals. |