Comments on: I Can’t Say I’m Entirely Sold On The Libertarian Gun Control Position

By: Tony

Tony — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 12:01:00 +0000

Because the biggest lunatic on top of the lunatic foodchain is always sitting in the white house. And right underneath it, in congress and the senate.
“Never let a good crisis go to waste,” is the prime lunatic’s mindset.

By: KStanonis

KStanonis — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 18:47:00 +0000

This is not about defense against criminals, or about hunting, or going out and plinking some steel. It’s about protecting ourselves from tyranny and foreign invasion.

Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto expressed an appropriate comment in the 1940’s (although some think this is could just be press propaganda):

“You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.”

Whether or not Yamamoto ever actually said those words, doesn’t diminish the facts as they stand. A society without guns equal to those that might be turned at us (Perhaps by our own military) in the face of tyranny, could very well be subject to totalitarian rule

By: Christian

Christian — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 01:31:00 +0000

“The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil
interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good”
– George Washington

By: Tighe

Tighe — Sat, 05 Jan 2013 00:35:00 +0000

I really can’t fall in line with the arguments against gun ownership, even when compared to other industrialized countries. Using recent statistics from Mother Jones on mass shootings and gun deaths from the CDC, we find that there have been about 60 mass shootings (+4 causalities) during the past 30 years, which the organization claims isn’t rare, though counting up the death toll one arrives at an underwhelming ~400 mass shooting deaths in that time period. Given that there are roughly 12k gun homicides (17k gun suicides per year) per year in the US, mass shootings account for around 0.001% of those. CDC further finds that a little less than 10% of gun homicides occur using a rifle rather than handgun, and account for fewer deaths per year than bladed homicides. So an ‘assault weapon’ (a politicized term, which really categories big scary guns in terms of cosmetic modifications, such as scope attachments and bayonet mounts, that are never reported in mass shootings, as well as extended clips, the exchange of which during a shooting is inconsequential to the unloading en masse of the device) ban then is over-regulating a negligible problem, particularly as it’s commonly known that murders more frequently occur between intimate parties, in which the murdering party usually has one or two victims in mind and a gun is a slight obstacle to that regard. It may also seem crass or unsympathetic to say gun violence is a negligible problem, but until adherents of gun restrictions take up the cause of preventing smoking deaths in the US (approx. 443k deaths per year in the US, ~40k of which are attributed to second-hand smoke, essentially homicide by smoke, compared to ~30k gun homicides plus suicides per year) at least as strong if not more so than the cause of gun regulation, it’s hard to suppose the final goal is to spare human life rather than to closet a big scary thing. And certainly, proponents of a ban similar to Clinton’s in ’94 can’t care at all, as it was superficial to say the least; if they claim there was a correlation to the decrease in gun violence, it may be the case, but in the years preceding the ban, gun violence was growing at a precipitated rate and only returned to levels prior to the increase during the ban; and just as well, gun violence as a whole has shown a marked consistent decrease after the ban expired. If there is any analogy to be drawn between the US and other industrialized nations with regard to their gun restrictions, it ought to be focused on the usual increase in general violent crime after a strong restriction is put into place. And with the US making up 39% of the small arms global market, often selling to warlords and autocrats, I’m certainly more comfortable with an armed citizenry.

By: First Last

First Last — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 02:50:00 +0000

Great documentary!

Resonance – Beings of Frequency

By: Daphne Sylk

Daphne Sylk — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 21:56:00 +0000

Very few people are going to change their position regardless of how many kids are shot. As far as this video, Lott provided minimal supportive evidence for his argument, a few quick overheads at the end that allowed for no examination of what the charts actually said or how he arrived at those figures. His data has been repeatedly questioned by responsible people, he tends to leave out stats that don’t support his positions. There is an answer to be drawn from unbiased statistics, but both sides only point to numbers that support their foregone conclusions.

By: kirk

kirk — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 21:18:00 +0000

only the irretrievably stupid would think that the way to rid society of murders is to make more defenseless victims. these are our ‘fellow citizens’.

only the irretrievably sociopathic would use the murder of innocents as the means to remove defensive capability so the sociopathic can then achieve their end and prey on all. these are our ‘leaders’.

with stupids listening and sociopaths preaching, is there any question as to the origin of the dire straits facing us?

By: kirk

kirk — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 21:03:00 +0000

Turn the tables on those who would violate the right to keep and bear arms.

Since the grabbers would use force to get their way, the non aggression principle does not apply to them.

FORCE THE GRABBERS TO OWN FIREARMS.

By: kirk

kirk — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 21:00:00 +0000

gangsters and police: you do repeat yourself.

By: kirk

kirk — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 20:59:00 +0000

the lunatic’s actions are the springboard to disarm all. when all are disarmed, the master class will have an entirely captive, docile population. they can then do anything and everything they desire to us all.

THAT is why the reaction to a lunatic is to restrict the freedoms of everyone else.