Unfortunately, with an impending Democratic presidency, we can expect more calls for gun control. Horrible shootings like the schoolyard shootings in Stockton and Columbine were widely discussed in the national media and given front page treatment. It’s not surprising that the recent tragedy involving a mass shooting by a police officer in Wisconsin is buried on the New York Times’ website today. And why? Well, it doesn’t support gun control, because even anti-gun types believe police should have guns. The gun control agenda depends upon manipulating images rather than dealing with facts. Accidental and mass shootings receive saturation coverage, while uses of guns in self-defense and the misuse of guns by officials are generally relegated to the local news, if they are covered at all.
-
Recent Comments
- Glaivester on Planned Parenthood Brouhaha
- Tschafer on Planned Parenthood Brouhaha
- UnPC on Planned Parenthood Brouhaha
- The Continental Op on Planned Parenthood Brouhaha
- mistergister on Planned Parenthood Brouhaha
Tags
Archives
Feeds and Statistics
-
-
-
-
Subscribe To This Feed
CNN has been headlining it since yesterday, and I think it fits into the narrative of guns = bad, so I don’t see why any left-leaning news agency would ignore it.
I think I will always be pro-gun rights, for reasons I don’t have time to elaborate, but basically boil down to a) let’s not scrap precedent and tradition, b) I don’t want to be left without a gun myself, and c) someday in the maybe not too distant future militias and posse’s may be necessary again.
But consider how your individual rights quote from Calhoun the other day relates to gun rights. Leaving aside questions of enforceability, in a society trending towards the lowest common denominator, will the right to bear arms always be an appropriate right to grant the general populace?
Maybe not in places like Iraq or among very young people or people who are proven bad people (i.e., violent felons), but for everyone else I’d prefer a presumptive right, at least among law-abiding Americans.
It was more of a philosophical question, i.e. do you see the country degenerating in the future to a point where it wouldn’t be wise to grant the general population the right to bear arms? To put it another way, would you give everyone in a country like Brazil the right to bear arms, or would you want to selectively grant the right?
I still imagine it would be better, even in Brazil, considering how many of the crooks are armed to the teeth and omnipresent. Countries seem to be violent and disorderly without regard to gun control; at least available guns lets people who would otherwise be sheep defend themselves. Few modern governments can make credible offers of protection in a disorderly society breaking down socially from poverty, crime, drugs, and inter-cultural conflict.
So what you’re saying is no, but only because it’s unenforceable?
M-16 machine gun, assault weapons have been transformed into “patrol” rifles in the hands of the police. Glad that is all cleared up.