The Left is Rallying to Take Your Guns Again

[Hans Blaster]

I suppose that if a dictator stepped forward today in the U.S. ;that the military would be split. I suspect that the majority of the armed people would stand with the military that was in opposition to the overthrow of our Republic.

Perhaps later, I will explain how dictators take over a country, but not right now. Suffice to say, it is not clear that the large number of armed Americans would prevent such an attempted take-over rather than back it.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Gun worshippers don't want to sacrifice anything to save lives. They're too terrified the government will take away all firearms because politicians have spoonfed this lie to win elections for decades. I remember when assault rifles were banned for a short period and gun deaths went down. The good old days when Americans actually cared about their neighbors and children. I wish we cared as much for our nine year old living children as much as we care about an unborn fetus growing in a stranger's womb.

Our politicians are too scared of being voted out of office to even sit down and discuss various ways to reduce gun violence. It is shameful how we voters won't hold them accountable for their apathy and inaction.

The trend I'm seeing is that the right seems to care about "life" only so far as it allows them to impose restrictions on others, not when it entails any restrictions on themselves.

Preventing others from engaging in abortion or assisted suicide? Absolutely.

Restricting access to firearms to prevent needless deaths?
Wearing masks, requiring vaccines, or restricting indoor gatherings to curb the spread of a pandemic?
Cutting air pollution to reduce the number of needless respiratory deaths?

mah rights!

 

[cow451]

This is a blog. Blogs are generally considered to be low on the credibility list. However, that's a moot point.

I wasn't speaking of Lott's website.

I was speaking of this book:

Overview

Does allowing people to own or carry guns deter violent crime? Or does it simply cause more citizens to harm each other? Directly challenging common perceptions about gun control, legal scholar John Lott presents the most rigorously comprehensive data analysis ever done on crime statistics and right-to-carry laws. This timely and provocative work comes to the startling conclusion: more guns mean less crime. In this paperback edition, Lott has expanded the research through 1996, incorporating new data available from states that passed right-to-carry and other gun laws since the book's publication as well as new city-level statistics.

"Lott's pro-gun argument has to be examined on the merits, and its chief merit is lots of data. . . . If you still disagree with Lott, at least you will know what will be required to rebut a case that looks pretty near bulletproof."—Peter Coy, Business Week

"By providing strong empirical evidence that yet another liberal policy is a cause of the very evil it purports to cure, he has permanently changed the terms of debate on gun control. . . . Lott's book could hardly be more timely. . . . A model of the meticulous application of economics and statistics to law and policy."—John O. McGinnis, National Review

"His empirical analysis sets a standard that will be difficult to match. . . . This has got to be the most extensive empirical study of crime deterrence that has been done to date."—Public Choice

"For anyone with an open mind on either side of this subject this book will provide a thorough grounding. It is also likely to be the standard reference on the subject for years to come."—Stan Liebowitz, Dallas Morning News

"A compelling book with enough hard evidence that even politicians may have to stop and pay attention. More Guns, Less Crime is an exhaustive analysis of the effect of gun possession on crime rates."—James Bovard, Wall Street Journal

"John Lott documents how far 'politically correct' vested interests are willing to go to denigrate anyone who dares disagree with them. Lott has done us all a service by his thorough, thoughtful, scholarly approach to a highly controversial issue."—Milton Friedman

Nice copy and paste work.

 

[HARK!]

That's the wrong question. In deciding on the value of the 2nd amendment, we need to do a cost/benefit analysis. The cost is the lives lost because there are so many guns.

As Lott has demonstrated the losses are escalated from a lack of guns in the hands of the law abiding.

Maybe you should focus on how many lives are saved by guns in the hands of the law abiding, in states where the people aren't oppressed with draconian gun laws. You'll probably have to dig into government statistics to get you answers. The Left biased media has little interest in reporting stories that undermine their agenda.

 

[HARK!]

Perhaps later, I will explain how dictators take over a country, but not right now. Suffice to say, it is not clear that the large number of armed Americans would prevent such an attempted take-over rather than back it.

So long as the people remain armed, they will have the final say concerning the boundaries of their rulers.

Power to the People!

 

[d taylor]

And Republicans against abortion stand twiddling their thumbs as our school children are killed and old ladies are killed while buying groceries. They can't call themselves "Pro Life" until they do something about this.

Are republicans advocating for shooters to have the right to shoot up places.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

So long as the people remain armed, they will have the final say concerning the boundaries of their rulers.

Power to the People!

It’s adorable you believe this.

 

[HARK!]

It would seem that the Right is counter-rallying to protect their golden calf.

What golden calf might that be, freedom, liberty, unalienable rights?

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Maybe you should focus on how many lives are saved by guns in the hands of the law abiding, in states where the people aren't oppressed with draconian gun laws.

How did that work out in Texas?

 

[HARK!]

It’s adorable you believe this.

Seeing is believing. I've never seen an armed slave.

 

[HARK!]

How did that work out in Texas?

It's working extremely well. Compare D.C..

 

[iluvatar5150]

What golden calf might that be, freedom, liberty, unalienable rights?

No, it's quite clear that firearm proliferation is held in higher regard than any of those things.

I don't believe inalienable rights exist at all, but even if they did, under our system, firearm ownership isn't one of them. The right to own a firearm only exists because of an amendment to the Constitution and can be revoked for several reasons.

 

[cow451]

So long as the people remain armed, they will have the final say concerning the boundaries of their rulers.

Power to the People!

Unless they are duped by an authoritarian they follow without question. Oh, snap.

 

[cow451]

Seeing is believing. I've never seen an armed slave.

You’re saying you know slaves personally?

 

[cow451]

It's working extremely well. Compare D.C..

Sorry but this thread is not about January 6, 2021.

 

[cow451]

It’s adorable you believe this.

MAGAnificent

 

[NxNW]

As Lott has demonstrated the losses are escalated from a lack of guns in the hands of the law abiding.

If only those Texas kids had been able to return fire.

Maybe you should focus on how many lives are saved by guns in the hands of the law abiding, in states where the people aren't oppressed with draconian gun laws. You'll probably have to dig into government statistics to get you answers.

Government statistics can be trusted? Aren't they the tyrants?

 

[NxNW]

Seeing is believing. I've never seen an armed slave.

How precious you believe that.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Tell us more about this.

Guess not.

 

[HARK!]

No, it's quite clear that firearm proliferation is held in higher regard than any of those things.

An armed people protects all of those things.

I don't believe inalienable rights exist at al

So you believe that not all men are created equal? That some have more rights than others?

but even if they did, under our system, firearm ownership isn't one of them. The right to own a firearm only exists because of an amendment to the Constitution and can be revoked for several reasons.

The Declaration of Independence is what gives our Constitution standing. The Constitution was written to protect the rights of the people, from an overreaching government. The Constitution doesn't grant any rights. It serves to protect the rights that every man is born with. At the center of those rights, is the right to defend all of his other rights, including his right to life.

I am not another man's property; and I bow to no man. Free men own guns.