It is well-known that the solution to hateful speech is more speech to fight it. Not censorship, although this seems to be what many on the side of the political Left, both in this country and throughout the world, seem to think, which is unfortunate. But generally, most people still seem to think that you fight hateful speech with more speech. You fight bad press with more press. And in terms of abuses of gun rights, i.e. mass shootings, you should fight these with more guns. Not confiscation or restrictions.
If schools are being shot up, you allow concealed-carry by those teachers and personnel who wish to engage in it and provide armed security. You end so-called "Gun-Free Zones" that only mean the only armed person will be the mass shooter. You do not infringe on the rights of the people, no more than you would infringe on any of the other rights of citizens. If we are faced with repeated mass terrorist attacks, say bombings, that kill twenty here, twenty there, would anybody really think that there would be an enormous demand in the media that we start talking about suspending right to privacy, right against having to talk to law enforcement, due process rights, free speech rights (make it illegal to mock Islam), etc...my suspicion would be no. You might see some calling for more oversight of mosques, and maybe calls for a total ban on Muslims coming into the country, but that would probably be it at the most. Any calls to suspend the rights of actual Muslims in the country would be met with fierce resistance, both by many citizens, politicians, and the courts. And such people would not be accused of being terrorists by the mainstream media.
Gun rights are no different. They are as sacrosanct as any of the other rights we cherish. If someone is abusing them, the solution is to work to solve the issue in ways that do not involve the suspension of civil liberties, just as we work to prevent terrorism without suspending civil liberties.
Saturday, February 24, 2018
There is Never a Time to Talk About Gun Control
One of the oft-made questions in the aftermath of a mass shooting is, "When can we talk about gun control?" The usual response to this from pro-gun rights people is, "Now is not the time to talk about gun control," the implication being that you do not politicize an issue when people are grieving and that discussion of gun control can come later. And there is truth to this, about you wait awhile before bringing in the politics. Of course, the later in which gun control supposedly would be discussed never comes, because the issue fades from memory and the gun rights people are not eager to bring it up. This is a strategy used by the gun rights side I suppose, as when they say, "Now is not the time to discuss the issue..." they say this knowing full well that they never really intend to discuss it in the way that the pro-gun-control proponents want to (which is to discuss what kind of gun control should be done).
This over time has led to frustration from the gun control proponents, who argue, "Well WHEN IS THE TIME to talk about gun control then?" Well to give them an answer, I would say, "Never." This is the answer I would like politicians to give as well. The reasoning is because, the right to keep and bear arms is a sacrosanct right. It is the right upon which all the others depend, and it is as sacred and fundamental to a free people as all of the other rights. After 9/11 happened, in which 3,000 Americans were slaughtered, nobody was asking, "When is the time to talk about speech control? Press control? Privacy infringement? Due process limitations?" Because those rights are considered sacrosanct. To the extent that anything was done by the Bush administration, it was dragged through the mud, called "fascist," "Hitler," "Nazi," and so forth.
The right to keep and bear arms is no different. In addition to this though, we know that the guns really are not the cause of these mass shootings. This is because the guns used in these mass shootings have been around for many decades now. One of the worst mass shootings in this nation's history, the Virginia Tech massacre, involved the use of only handguns. The 1911 pistol, a .45 caliber handgun that takes a detachable 12 shot magazine, has been around since 1911. 9mm pistols have also been in use for many decades. The Thompson submachine gun ("Tommy" gun) has been available since the 1920s, and during the 1920s, people could purchase automatic fire Tommy guns at hardware stores, gas stations, gun stores, or by mail-order, where an automatic fire gun known for its use by gangsters was delivered right to your front door, no background check, whatever size magazine (s) you wanted, and that was that, yet mass shootings were not a problem then. After WWII, you could get WWII M1 Carbines delivered as well, a semiautomatic, detachable magazine rifle. The AK-47 was invented in 1947, although I do not know when it became available in the United States, but they have been available for a much longer time than these mass shootings of late. And the AR-15 became available in 1964 to the civilian market. Yet, these mass shootings are a very recent phenomenon in their frequency. Which tells us that it can't be the guns that are the cause. There is something else at hand that is contributing to them.
Muslim terrorism has been one contributor, as three of the mass shootings of late have been committed by Muslim terrorists. These are the Fort Hood shooting, the San Bernardino shooting, and the Orlando nightclub massacre. Some of the others have just been plain straight-up mental illness. And then others have been cases of pure evil it seems.
This over time has led to frustration from the gun control proponents, who argue, "Well WHEN IS THE TIME to talk about gun control then?" Well to give them an answer, I would say, "Never." This is the answer I would like politicians to give as well. The reasoning is because, the right to keep and bear arms is a sacrosanct right. It is the right upon which all the others depend, and it is as sacred and fundamental to a free people as all of the other rights. After 9/11 happened, in which 3,000 Americans were slaughtered, nobody was asking, "When is the time to talk about speech control? Press control? Privacy infringement? Due process limitations?" Because those rights are considered sacrosanct. To the extent that anything was done by the Bush administration, it was dragged through the mud, called "fascist," "Hitler," "Nazi," and so forth.
The right to keep and bear arms is no different. In addition to this though, we know that the guns really are not the cause of these mass shootings. This is because the guns used in these mass shootings have been around for many decades now. One of the worst mass shootings in this nation's history, the Virginia Tech massacre, involved the use of only handguns. The 1911 pistol, a .45 caliber handgun that takes a detachable 12 shot magazine, has been around since 1911. 9mm pistols have also been in use for many decades. The Thompson submachine gun ("Tommy" gun) has been available since the 1920s, and during the 1920s, people could purchase automatic fire Tommy guns at hardware stores, gas stations, gun stores, or by mail-order, where an automatic fire gun known for its use by gangsters was delivered right to your front door, no background check, whatever size magazine (s) you wanted, and that was that, yet mass shootings were not a problem then. After WWII, you could get WWII M1 Carbines delivered as well, a semiautomatic, detachable magazine rifle. The AK-47 was invented in 1947, although I do not know when it became available in the United States, but they have been available for a much longer time than these mass shootings of late. And the AR-15 became available in 1964 to the civilian market. Yet, these mass shootings are a very recent phenomenon in their frequency. Which tells us that it can't be the guns that are the cause. There is something else at hand that is contributing to them.
Muslim terrorism has been one contributor, as three of the mass shootings of late have been committed by Muslim terrorists. These are the Fort Hood shooting, the San Bernardino shooting, and the Orlando nightclub massacre. Some of the others have just been plain straight-up mental illness. And then others have been cases of pure evil it seems.
Monday, January 29, 2018
Why do people think Republicans will lose big in mid-terms?
So it has been some time, but I figured I'd maybe start posting here again. Will have to see how it goes. For this particular post though, I am just wondering about the current claims that the Democrats are going to "ride a wave" into the 2018 mid-terms and win big. My question is, based on what? Yes, Donald Trump has lower poll numbers, but he had those before the 2016 election as well. So if the polls were inaccurate then, than why should they be considered accurate now?
Public disapproval with Trump's policies? Trump is governing exactly as he said he would. He ran on a total rejection of all the political correctness that has been shoved down the throat of the public for years now, and won. Then he has governed (or tried to govern) based on that and the public is displeased and will thus vote in Democrats in big numbers of 2018? I think people may be greatly over-estimating the Democrats' chances, but we will see.
Public disapproval with Trump's policies? Trump is governing exactly as he said he would. He ran on a total rejection of all the political correctness that has been shoved down the throat of the public for years now, and won. Then he has governed (or tried to govern) based on that and the public is displeased and will thus vote in Democrats in big numbers of 2018? I think people may be greatly over-estimating the Democrats' chances, but we will see.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)