STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
The Fearful Progressivism of Gun Control
By Daily Bell Staff - December 02, 2015

Obama pushes for gun control after Planned Parenthood shooting … After a gunman opened fire at a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood on Friday, killing three people and injuring several others, President Obama urged the nation to increase controls over "the easy accessibility of weapons of war." – CBS News

Dominant Social Themes: Guns kill people.

Free-Market Analysis: Do guns kill people, or do people kill people? We think it's the latter. It's the reason that the British are now suffering from a rash of murderous biting.

Sorry, we just made that up, and, sure, it's nothing to joke about but it could be true. The Brits – living on an island as enlightened as Antarctica under a trillion tons of ice – have seemingly made every kind of weapon illegal. You can't even shoot a burglar in your own home without being hauled into court with the threat of life imprisonment.

And what's the result? The Brits are onto knives now, well … really anything pointy. Last year, The Daily Sheeple posted an article on the next wave of confiscations. The title: "Is This a Joke? British Police Push for Ban on Pointy Knives."

You can't laugh about it. It's not a joke anymore. There is no longer any limit to what can be controlled and regulated. Most people would have laughed hysterically if you told them there would be calls for knife control someday. And not just butterfly knives and switchblades, but apparently, anything that is "pointy".

The British are thorough as well as often compulsively authoritarian. We learn from the article that, "Researchers consulted 10 top chefs from around the UK, and found such knives have little practical value in the kitchen. None of the chefs felt such knives were essential, since the point of a short blade was just as useful when a sharp end was needed."

Point taken. Even professional chefs won't miss their knives since a short-bladed tool can do the job as well. Presumably it didn't occur to the surveyed chefs that once the long-bladed knives have been confiscated, short-bladed ones will be the next to go. Presumably, then, if they want to cut something up they can make snipping motions with their thumbs and index fingers.

The article excerpted above from CBS never tells us what President Barack Obama intends to do about gun violence but it does mention Obama's frustration several times. It's not good to make Obama frustrated. The last time it happened, it seems he came up with Obamacare. Here's some more from the article:

"This is not normal," the president said in a statement Saturday. "We can't let it become normal." "If we truly care about this – if we're going to offer up our thoughts and prayers again, for God knows how many times, with a truly clean conscience – then we have to do something about the easy accessibility of weapons of war on our streets to people who have no business wielding them," Mr. Obama added. "Enough is enough."

We'll wait to see what Obama has in mind but we are not hopeful. He is an enormously energetic and destructive man and the Republicans in Congress don't seem to be capable of resisting him.

We would recommend, in any case, (he won't) that Obama take a look at a just-published article on gun control by Eric Englund over at LewRockwell.com. Entitled "Politically Correct Thinking about Guns," it is a long but entertaining essay about the mad, magic logic that "progressives" adopt when it comes to this contentious issue.

Here's an excerpt:

Let's make all privately-owned guns disappear; and then murder, suicide, and crime in general will magically dissipate into the ether. To progressives, like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, more guns mean more violence and, therefore, fewer guns mean less violence. For progressives, this politically-correct assertion is all that is needed to justify their push for gun control.

Fortunately, this simple-minded view of guns is unsupportable as it implies every human being is deranged enough to commit murder by merely having access to a gun. Don B. Kates and Gary Mauser, fortuitously, have produced a study dispelling the anti-gun drivel spewed by progressives; and, no surprise here, guns do not mysteriously impel individuals to commit murder and suicide.

Although the truth does not matter to progressives, it is critical to speak truth to the anti-gun, power-seeking psychopaths in the progressive movement. Many people will listen and our liberty depends upon doing so.

While Englund's essay is putatively about gun control, it has just as much to say about the warped logic of "progressives" who believe the state power of confiscatory force is a "magic bullet" that will do away with shooting and shooters.

England is probably correct when he writes, "The attractiveness of progressivism is that it relieves people from having to think for themselves while making them believe they are intellectuals."

Englund also points out that progressivism is "not grounded in philosophy, logic, political science or economic theory. Rather, it springs from emotion or magical thinking." And he makes the terrific point that progressivism is actually fear-based, which is why it's so hard to counter. The memes of political correctness have been carefully designed to appeal to fearful people.

He tells us about some of the conclusions reached by Kates and Mauser in their study (published by the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, spring of 2007), especially when it comes to murderers who are not ordinary "law-abiding citizens." Instead, "almost all murderers are extremely aberrant individuals with life histories of violence, psychopathology, substance abuse, and other dangerous behaviors."

In other words, these are violent people for one reason or another and they will be violent with or without guns. Confiscating guns will not make them any less violent, which is one reason why gun control in Britain has devolved into pointy-knife control.

The impulse is always to confiscate one last weapon, but the confiscation has nothing to do with the reality of violence and those perpetrating it.

Englund concludes that "Kates and Mauser have armed us with the truth about privately-owned firearms. In the battle of ideas, I'm optimistic the truth will win out. Millions of gun owners know this."

We wish we could be as optimistic as Englund but, in our view, the political economy currently (and historically) only moves in one direction, forward. The US – the West, really – is suffering from a severe bout of authoritarianism. And the more authoritarianism advances, the more fearful people become. It's very hard to break that cycle with "logic."

After Thoughts

For this reason, as always, we suggest that people concentrate on making a difference for themselves and their loved ones. Arm yourself with knowledge regarding your own self-sufficiency before you tackle the rest of the world. We're not suggesting that you be selfish, merely realistic. Perhaps we can continue to help you in that regard.

Posted in STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
  • windsor1

    In Honduras where there is gun control they enjoy the highest homicide rates on the planet using guns. In Switzerland every household is encouraged to have a gun. Switzerland has the lowest homicide rate by guns. Australia just introduced an expensive gun confiscation program and homicide rates using guns went up. Chucky Schumer who is leading gun confiscation along with Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein has a concealed carry permit.
    MSM who no longer is interested in investigative journalism does not report these facts. Instead this is another program the public does not want that is forced upon us. It is not unlike Obamacare or trade agreements like TPP or endless wars or failure to eliminate the Federal Reserve. Maybe it is time for Americans to wake from their slumber and ask ” who are the elected representatives working for?”

    • Heywood Jablome

      ” who are the elected representatives working for?” – the regular readers of this forum, can answer that question, and it is not just the leaders inside the beltway, but in the five eyes, and beyond, we have been apathetic in our efforts to bring these politicos and their apparatchiks to heel, and unfortunately they have bought the public approval with the publics own money, and continue to address only agendas which ensure their longevity in public office and their fiscal health, they do not serve the people who pay their freight, and roles are now reversed, they now act as masters, as opposed to their proper roles as servants.

      • Blank Reg

        Yes, and it was We the Sheeple who let them get away with it.

    • Gil G

      Source = John Lott Jr, probably.

      • Blank Reg

        You are free to find a better one. Good luck with that.

  • Godwin’s modified duck test

    There are already knife rights organizations in the US. Look at NYC’s policy of imprisoning handymen for carrying knives on their belt loop. Then there is the absurd ‘gravity knife’ test and switchblade paranoia.

    https://mises.org/blog/consequences-prohibition-knives-0

  • Rog cook

    Sorry, this is rubbish. I’m from the UK and in spite of Islamic terrorists, the U.K. Remains one of the world’s safest places.
    A friend of mine was in New York and went to an ATM. A voice behind him said quietly
    “Have you ever been shot?”
    He has a pistol concealed in his anorak pocket.
    A colleague of my wife’s ( airline stewardess) was marched around every ATM until they had emptied her card.
    Our murder rate is a tiny fraction of yours. Not because we are better people but because we don’t have guns. I hear your police are pretty trigger happy too.
    So give me ‘Englund’ anytime over trigger happy ‘Land of the free, tee hee’ any day.

    • http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-ugly-truth-about-poverty-in-britain/5481872.

      Please see the link above for a good summary of the expanding poverty in Britain. The same authoritarian impulse that confiscates guns has also blighted the prospects of British entrepreneurs and kept its terrible class system in place.

      • Rog cook

        They say ‘the number of British households falling below minimum living standards has more than doubled in that same period of about 30 years. It’s the SAME in the US.’ So you can’t use that argument!
        Yes, we have a class system and I hate it, though it’s not nearly as bad as 50 years ago. But the US now has a class system, it’s no longer really the land of the free: it’s totally controlled by billionaires and large companies, who dictate US policy via bought Congressmen. Eg Koch brothers, Monsanto

    • Col. Edward H. R. Green

      Your friend’s experience in NYC was due, in part, to the fact that the government of NYC outlawed the private bearing of firearms in the city, a ban that has been extended state-wide by the New York State government. Fewer thugs in NYC would feel confident enough to hold someone up at an ATM if they knew that they risked being shot and killed in self-defense by their intended victim who happened to be carrying some heat !

      You display the typical psychology of a European who has been conditioned since birth to regard himself as a subject to government instead of government’s master. That is what happens when people live under monarchies, constitutional or otherwise. It conditions them to tolerate and welcome tyranny.

      • If living under a monarchy explains those who regard themselves as subjects of government rather than government’s master, what explains Americans’ lack of action and acquiescence to goverment tyranny?!

        • Godwin’s modified duck test

          Objects in the rear view mirror…

          Perhaps the retrospective view
          of US’s colonial era has become so magnified and distorted that
          individuals find it hard to reasonably compare yesterday’s monarchs to
          today’s tyrants.

          Most monarchs wielded less power than our modern heads of state.

          Monarchs usually had extensive power sharing arrangements which prevented them from tyranny. Even the absolutist Czars could not order someone killed by drone or have the entire citizenry analyzed by computerized surveillance.

          In those days escaping pursuit was as simple as boarding a decent sailing vessel.

      • Rog Cook

        BREAKING NEWS: At least 12 people dead and eight injured in mass shooting inside a California learning disability center as police hunt for three ‘white men dressed in ski masks and military gear’

        Sorry, I don’t want this scenario in the UK! I suppose if all the disabled people carried AK 47’s they may have survived, but that’s not for me.

        • You’re not suggesting this happened because people in the US are allowed to own guns, are you? Honestly, the real question (for everyone, including Obama and the media, etc.) is: How are these mass shootings in ANY way related to the legal ability (or lack thereof) of Americans to own guns?

          • Gil G

            A mass shooting occurs on the news and people around the world automatically know which country it’s going to be from – coincidence?

          • Blank Reg

            Except for…maybe….France…and more to come, I imagine.

          • henrybowman

            I repeat: With one exception, EVERY spree shooting in the USA since 1950 has taken place where honest citizens are not allowed to carry guns. The average number killed in a mass shooting stopped by police is 14.29. The average number killed in a mass shooting stopped by a civilian is 2.33. You bet your bippy it’s related.

        • Guy Christopher

          Interesting that carrying a weapon is not for you, but you’re very happy to have someone else carry that weapon for you, happy to have someone else risk his life for you, happy to have someone else leave a worried wife or husband or mom or dad everyday when he goes to his job that requires carrying a gun. Like all libs, you believe someone else should take care of you.

        • henrybowman

          Have you not noticed that you keep pulling your examples from localities where only the honest people are disarmed? Because we’ve noticed it, and we’re confident that the correlation isn’t a coincidence. With one exception, EVERY spree shooting in the USA since 1950 has taken place where honest citizens are not allowed to carry guns. The average number killed in a mass shooting stopped by police is 14.29. The average number killed in a mass shooting stopped by a civilian is 2.33. Responsible adults survive best when they are treated as responsible adults instead of as children.

        • Praetor

          Before making stupid comments be sure to have your facts straight. You sir are watching way to much tele. You do not know what the hell your talking about. One more chalked-up too stupidity. You have had that scenario in the UK!

    • Gil G

      Aw shucks it’s not about gun violence: it’s about gun freedom. The dead bodies are the price to pay for open gun ownership the same way traffic fatalities are the price to pay for open vehicle ownership. Just as a poor country doesn’t much traffic fatalities because everyone’s too poor to own vehicles en masse so too firearm fatalities are much lower in countries where mass private gun ownership isn’t a thing.

  • Bolt Upright

    “While Englund’s essay is putatively about gun control, it has just as much to say about the warped logic of “progressives”” The day non Liberal humans realize what type of human, and why they behave as they do, I’ll quit mentioning their science behind their ideology.

  • Donna

    I think the author misses the point of why governments want gun control. Not to decrease crime as many statistics show crime rises after gun control. That is just the political platform they use. They want guns confiscated so that they can control and regulate the masses to whatever degree they wish. Guns are our only protection against tyranny and they know it.

    • On the contrary, the author concludes: The US – the West, really – is suffering from a severe bout of authoritarianism. And the more authoritarianism advances, the more fearful people become. It’s very hard to break that cycle with “logic.”

      • Guy Christopher

        There’s a difference in pushing people around because you can (government), and worrying that people will push back (armed populace). That is the point those of us make who argue this topic has nothing to do with public safety.

      • Don Duncan

        Authoritarianism thrives on fear, which demands greater security, i.e., authority. This cycle was continued by WWI, WWII, etc., and false flag events, e.g., 911, mass shootings. The way to break the cycle is by teaching children how to think for themselves. Sending them to public (govt.) schools does the opposite. Our mind, i.e., our cognitive ability used for critical analysis, is our primary protection. The public schools cripple minds.

    • Guy Christopher

      I wrote my comment before I read yours. Completely agree with your point.

    • Blank Reg

      Or, as sci-fi author L. Neil Smith put it, “The reason they want to take your guns is that they want to do other things to you that they couldn’t do if you kept your guns. It’s really that simple.”

  • Bruce C.

    I find it hard to believe that “Progressives”, “Liberals”, etc. truly care about the deaths of others. Rather, I think they fear for their own lives and figure that gun control would at least make killing people like themselves less likely.

    Would Obama, say, be willing to appear in public if he knew he wasn’t protected? I say “no way.” He knows how subversive and threatening he is, and that’s the only way he can get away with it. Ditto for most of the politicians in Washington.

    • Guy Christopher

      100% agreement.

  • Dimitri Ledkovsky

    There’s a push to take machetes off the market and label them as dangerous and something that needs to be “controlled”. Haven’t heard of any axe murderers lately. Maybe that will become popular after all the easy and clean methods of venting psycho rage go underground.

  • 45clive

    It seems the authoritarian state grows by black flag terrorism. I don’t take any public mass shootings at face value, at least immediately after they are reported, without consideration of possible indicators not reported in the mainstream media.
    It is always important to have “things” that are illegal in an authoritarian state. It justifies a large and growing police force, since the “thing” is never something people choose to do without. Now that marijuana and likely many other so called drugs (actually natural herbal products that anyone can grow) are to be made legal again the authoritarian state needs to replace that particular “thing” with something else. That something else is guns. Just as “throw down” pamphlets and bogus internet postings are used to charge and convict those the state chooses to attack, so a gun, conveniently falling onto a coffee table during a raid, is enough to charge and convict the targeted individual just as effectively as a baggie of some illegal substance.
    Besides, the injustice industry is a union business at the bottom and middle. At the top it is a payoff for lawyers. Can anyone believe such a system can be moderated without a financial collapse or a Putinesque reset bouncing all those paychecks? And you can bet when all our “protectors”, as in protection racket, walk off the job when their paychecks don’t show up they will be taking their guns with them.

  • Guy Christopher

    The gun control argument is too often mischaracterized. Politicians are not interested and do not care if you or your family member dies from a gunshot wound. They are worried about losing their power because of their own gunshot wounds. This argument has nothing to do with public safety. It has everything to do with protecting power. It has nothing to do with plinking rabbits on a Saturday morning in the forest. It has everything to do with enslaving the population once and for all, just as the Founding Fathers warned against, and did their best to defend against.

  • Praetor

    Of course the progressives are fearful, paranoids. There is a bogyman under their beds. To be honest, here is why. Estimates range from 270 to 310 million weapons in the hands of the citizens, 90 weapons for every 100 people, 2 million ” destructive devices” grenades and the like. Just a couple of months ago, a guy refurbished a tank, when he was practice firing a shell miss-fired and blow him and the tank-up, well that is one tank they don’t have to worry about.

    I have said here before if you ban anything, the value increases, and a market is created. NYC, has a highway going into it and they call it the Iron Pipeline, and why do they call it that, because it is the main smuggling route into the city for gunrunning. This fact being known, makes one wonder. Just as with alcohol and cannabis prohibition a market, black it be, increases the value of the product prohibited, more money in the pockets of someone. I surmise, the progressives are fearful of getting found out that their political coffers and bank accounts are full of black market money for passing gun control legislation. So, you tell me!!!

    • Are these comments intending to suggest that “non-progressives/liberals” (whatever that may be called) are NOT fearful?

      • Praetor

        If non-progressives/liberals are fearful, they be afraid of government nocking down the door the and take their weapons!!!

  • Don Duncan

    Arguing against gun control is striking at the leaf, not the tree root. A victory today is lost tomorrow because the fundamental problem was not addressed. The problem is duel systems of social interaction exist. And they are based on opposite assumptions, or at least opposite methods of interaction. The private system assumes each of us is a sovereign, to be granted autonomy, rights. This is seen in the day to day interactions of private citizens. The public system assumes authorities should and do have power over private citizens. This power is backed by the threat of death, in all matters, big and small. Authorities vary in power by a hierarchy. This is called authoritarianism.

    The first system produces peace and prosperity. The second consumes wealth and produces chaos. A tug-a-war between the two favors the second, which grows stronger until it destroys the first. A reboot occurs with the first dominant until the destructive cycle plays out again. What is needed is to break the cycle by enlightenment of the masses. This begins with teaching children how to be sovereign, independent, thinking individuals.

    If you don’t want to take the time or have the skill to create a mature thinking person, you shouldn’t have children.

  • Marie Adams

    Has their been any studies as to how many of these killing have been fostered by the CIA? how many are fake? Seems to me a study like might call forth who is setting up all this chaos.

  • Gil G

    The article pretty much sums the pro-gun rights view from the start – “you know in the U.K. they can’t shoot a person dead in the privacy of their own homes without a police investigation?”

  • Barney Biggs

    As a Canadian and living in a country with very strict laws on what firearm you can and cannot own here is my take. (who cares right??)
    Unless very very special circumstances exist like a policeman, certain security people and some private citizens you are not allowed to own a hand gun of any sort or caliber. This means that well over 90% of the citizens cannot legally own, buy, trade. possess or buy ammo for a hand gun without a specific licence.

    You are not allowed to own or have in your possession any assault weapon or in fact any centre fired long gun with a magazine of more than 4 rounds. In order to obtain a licence to own any weapon with a velocity of more than 495 ft per second you have to take a safety course from a certified outfit and apply for a Possession and purchase licence (PAL).
    A rim fired long gun can have a mag with more than a 4 round capacity 22 cal.

    You cannot purchase ammo without a PAL.

    Nobody is allowed to have a concealed weapon nor a carry permit. You have a permit to take a hand gun from your home to the range and
    back, no exceptions except by permit.

    A previous Government attempted to create a gun registry of all firearms in Canada. This was approx a $billion hit on the public purse with additional civil servants to administer it. It never worked and created so much confusion and havoc that the last Government adandoned it.

    I said all of that to get to the point that despite all of these restrictions all enforced by the RCMP and local cops there is hardly a week that goes by without a murder and the bulk of them are with illegal hand guns. Yes there are some with long guns as well.

    We have approx 35 million people in Canada less than the State of California and still we have this problem with nutbars and guns.

    There is no way that you can pass laws which will prevent the nutbars from killing with guns of all kinds. Not possible.
    Should you in the US try to legislate a gun registry with your population and the number guns in existance your costs would add hundreds of billions to your debt.

    I do wonder though why having assault auto rifles are permitted with huge mag capacities. Yes I know about your constitution but in my read of it, I did not see any mention of this type of weapon. Not much good for hunting, not much good for most competition. .

    • Bruce C.

      “Arms” is a purposely general word that implies an effective physical/technological form of defense (and possibly offense if necessary) against government tyranny. Such arms as you describe are at least a psychological and political deterrent against minions of the government who probably possess weapons ten times as lethal.

      Why should the government have weapons like these: see http://dollarcollapse.com/war/whats-with-all-the-superweapons/

      • Barney Biggs

        Internally perhaps they shouldn’t but we seem to elect those who wish to enhance Government and it’s power.

        These elected types seem to conclude that it is their sworn duty to extend control over us sheeple and by continually electing the same type we solidify that assumption.

        There are not enough of the US to effect much change and while we watch Mr. Trump in your country the chances of his election to POTUS are very very slim.

        Why should they have these weapons only one reason and that is to ensure their control over us under the facade of security.

        It really makes no difference which party is elected nor which country you are talking about.

        Not sure I have answered your question but tried.

        • Bruce C.

          My question was rhetorical.

          Also, I don’t agree that Trump’s election to the POTUS is very slim at all. In fact, I think it is very likely.

          • Barney Biggs

            Bruce Time will tell but I think that the closer you get to the convention and more importantly the election the more heat will be on trump and the media will demonize him and make a concerted effort along with the Dems and GOP elite to maintain the status quo.

            Even the Tea Party seem to have faded in their opposition in the last while.

          • Bruce C.

            We shall see, but short of assassination I think the only thing that will derail Trump will be Trump himself and I don’t think that will happen. The key fact is that those who oppose him don’t get or don’t want to admit is that most people are tired of professional politicians and the status quo and either see through their efforts to discredit Trump or their strategies backfire. That’s why Trump and Carson are leading.

          • Barney Biggs

            I kind of thought the same thing here but in the final analysis the media convinced the sheeple to go on personality.
            I kind of doubt your sheeple are that much different. They sure aren’t around the world that I can see.

          • Bruce C.

            Well if “personality” is what sells then “the Donald” is a shoo-in.

          • Barney Biggs

            Funny thing is that from my friends in the US you either love him or hate him. There does not seem to be any middle of the road.

          • Bruce C.

            I agree. It will be interesting to see what happens. One main complaint about Trump is that he’s not serious but if he lasts until the Primary he may win those folks over. Another is that he is a clown but it’s turning out that just about everything he says is true. He wrote a book that proved most prescient about the ME and terrorism, for example, and started the conversation about illegal immigration before it became an obvious problem, etc. Not to mention his own business success and judgement and ability to deal with a-holes.

            I’m sure there will be some who will never vote for him but they may very well not vote at all in that case given the alternatives. Not such a problem in the Primary but could be in the general election unless Clinton seems even more vile to them. Stay tuned.

          • Barney Biggs

            Out side of the US much of the world is not comfortable with anybody who actually gives straight talk. They like what they call Statesmen which is just another name for BS spinners. They are concerned over Trump and in fact most of the GOP as they consider them to be what they call “COWBOYS” who act not taking their views into consideration.
            Much of the world is far left regardless of what they call themselves. Here there is only one party that is as far RIGHT as the Dems and the rest move left from there.
            The current idiot they just voted in told us before elected that he was bringing in 25k muslim refugees before Christmas and now says he is bringing in another 50K next years. If I were the US I would lock the borders both North and South. Keep in mind Bruce we are a very very small country with fewer people than California but will similar mentality.
            He is also bringing in more environmental taxes and as his numbers were and are completely nuts there will be more income taxes.

            I do have to wonder how Trump will do in the foreign relations dept. in fact most if not all of the GOP and Dem candidates I see. I would love for him to stay home and look after the US and not destabilize some of these crap hole countries. Let them kill each other (population control). Now that the damage is done in much of the ME and the refugees are coming over here we will all pay the price.

            Whoever, is going to have to start paying big time attention to China and the BRICS as they are eating us alive economically mostly with our help. China just complete an agreement with South Africa $94 billion Rand to co operate on most everything in the country from roads to hospitals etc. etc. You might notice that most of their recent deals have been bypassing the USD and are in local currencies, Rubles, Rands, Euros and on and on.

            Oh well Bruce we also have to keep in mind that regardless of who gets in, “WE THE SHEEPLE” will get fleeced.

          • Barney Biggs

            Bruce You probably do but if not have a read of FIXTHISNATION Google it. It is on Trump today.

            I was going to mention. I was playing a sport in the US a couple of years ago when a guy I knew came up to me angrily and started ranting about how bad Cruz was and yadda, yadda yadda. At that time I know nothing about Cruz. The crux of this was that Cruz was a nutbar and I was under attack because Cruz was born in Canada.
            Finally another mutual friend stepped in and shood him away. Being an alien I was hoping he would not start throwing punches because if I returned the fun I would be peeking out from bars. This person is a university grad, senior citizen and living in an upscale community.

          • James Solbakken

            The Tea Party is still around, but the media make a point of not mentioning them, because to talk about them, even and especially to demonize them, only makes them stronger. They are flying under the radar by mutual assent at the moment. I know because I’m on the mailing list of multiple Tea Party groups. They are more educational now rather than “activist,” if you know what I mean.

    • DavidMacko

      The Second Amendment prohibits “our” government from infringing on our God-given right to own any weapons which may be necessary to protect our lives and liberty from private criminals or a government which desires to enslave us.

      • Gil G

        Or to go on a shooting spree, it’s all good.

  • henrybowman

    “Presumably, then, if they want to cut something up they can make snipping motions with their thumbs and index fingers.”

    Make that their index and middle fingers… because a snipping motion with the thumb and index finger is the universal sign for “bang, bang,” so right there and then, it’s off to the nick with you!

  • Danny B

    We don’t allow our children to watch sex on TV,, even cartoon sex. The argument is that they will copy it. We do allow them to watch gross amounts of murder and mayhem. The argument goes; they know that it isn’t real and it won’t affect them. They aren’t allowed to watch one of the most natural and creative acts that man can do. They ARE allowed to watch the ultimate destructive act that a man can do.
    We load the biosphere up with millions of tons of chemicals, especially ” endocrine disrupters” and we wonder why they act so strange. We pass out billions of pills that strongly affect the brain with no understanding of long-term effects.
    There is no particular need for weapons in a peaceful society for personal defence.,,, other then for large carnivores. When you start adding disruptive elements to a society, there is more demand for protection. http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6607/sweden-migrants-fear

  • dc.sunsets

    Progressivism is simply a name for the Theocracy that has ruled the USA since before its inception.

    One of its main tenets is Human Neurological Uniformity (per Moldbug.) This holds that under our skin, all people the world over are the same. Same behavior, same intelligence, same modes of thought. Yes, just try to insinuate differently, especially if you’re at work. You will be subjected to re-education if not outright termination of employment.

    This is relevant because of the 3rd rail no one can discuss regarding violent crime. Notwithstanding extremely unusual events like this latest, the overwhelming majority of violent crime is committed by blacks, followed by browns. Using the City of New York’s own arrest data, if only people of European descent were left in the city, its violent crime would drop 91%. Yes, you read that right.

    The dirty little secret is that the effect of any posited gun ban would be tiny compared to banning black people. Yes, that’s impossible, but so is any effective ban on guns. My point is that it is High Heresy to point out that ONE SUB-POPULATION of Americans is responsible for the vast majority of violent crime, including crime committed with guns. Political posturing to disarm (presumably) ALL people for the sins of SOME people should strike anyone with an IQ over room temperature as silly, stupid and wrong.

    Its ONLY effect would be to disarm white victims while leaving black and brown thugs armed with the guns coming into the country beside the bags of dope.

  • alaska3636

    Mises sees far and wide:

    “It must be reiterated that no reasoning founded on the principles of philosophical ethics or of the Christian creed can reject as fundamentally unjust an economic system that succeeds in improving the material conditions of all people, and assign the epithet “just” to a system that tends to spread poverty and starvation. The evaluation of any economic system must be made by careful analysis of its effects upon the welfare of people, not by an appeal to an arbitrary concept of justice which neglects to take these effects into full account.” Theory and History, pg. 346

    I just read this passage and thought that it was an eloquent restatement of Bastiat’s Unseen. For all the ink spilled regarding political, economic and foreign policy, few places outside the DB regard the effects of stated policies and even fewer track the effects. To expand on the point, in those US cities that are most vehement about “gun control”, there seems to be an above average (in the US) issue with a controlling gun violence; the war on drugs has done nothing to stem the distribution of controlled substances; tax enforcement leads to tax evasion. Always the power centralizes in the hands of those whose policies seem incapable of achieving their stated ends.

  • Pilgrim

    God created men . . . Samuel Colt made them equal.

  • RockinBanker

    Great article. Liberals are cowards and everything they espouse is based on fear and other people’s money. They don’t want to think or make decisions, let alone take action-just let the central planner take care of things, but then they have this bizarre, pseudo-intellectual do-gooder arrogance. As if they’re actually doing something “good.” Hilarious if it wasn’t so destructive. Everything they’ve touched is crap. I grew up and worked in Detroit. WTF.

    So, these discussions are great, but what’s the point, really? Take the brain power and add some balls and figure out how to hold the limousine liberals accountable (legally and peacefully!). Seriously, all the s–t that Obama and Clinton and Holder, etc., have pulled, but no one can figure out how to hold them accountable? I would seriously enjoy reading great thinking applied to that and I would support it-with votes, my limited financial support and my prayers. It’s coming to that: God save us.

loading