Search This Blog

Sunday, December 16, 2012

The Folly of 'Gun Control.'

Jordan179: The Folly of "Gun Control."

related: Vox Day: Mailvox: the utility of rhetoric -- "... Does anyone think that his perfectly rational, perfectly correct argument about the false sense of security provided by gun-free zones will have any effect whatsoever on the minds of women (*) who are posturing (**) about how hard they are crying and how they are "hugging them close today"?

Of course not. The dialectic cannot reach the rhetorically-minded. Yes, it is logical nonsense to say "if you do not homeschool your children, they will die", just as it is nonsense to say "because one crazy individual shot 27 people, we must forcibly seize 300 million privately owned firearms that prevent government tyranny." And yet, these logically nonsensical rhetorical arguments that shamelessly play upon the emotions of individuals are the only ones that the majority - the majority - of the electorate find credible and convincing. And so they must be made.

(*) Of course, these days, far too many 'individuals of XY-ness' are not really men, but are rather merely women-who-happen-to-have-dicks. Yet, since they're not *really* women, but rather not-quite-men trying to be women, they tend to combine not the best traits of men with the best traits of women, but the worst traits of men with the worst traits of women.

(**) It is always a mistake, frequently ultimately deadly to your polity and to your liberty, to give woman a direct public voice in the running of one's polity. This applies whether the polity in question is a church (as witness the Anglicans/Episcopalians) or a civic society and the government ruling that society (as increasingly witness America since ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution).

DonReynolds: (in a comment to) Mailvox: the utility of rhetoric -- "I am already tired of hearing the Leftwing shout down anyone who wants to comment on this mass murder of children, claiming they are politicizing the tragedy. Of course, the little kids were still laying in their own blood when Barack Obama, as President, got on national media to politicize the event. He and others had already announced this was the moment when we needed to take effective action to prevent such events in the future by doing way from the guns. Lemmie see, they are NOT politicizing the tragedy by using it as a renewed call for more gun control? Listen, anytime the President of the United States gets on national media to shed a few croc tears, it is ALREADY POLITICIZED. What follows is the usual kabuki theater, complete with the predictable posturing and painted faces.

Is anyone saying they would be happier if the killer had only used a compound bow or a Bowie knife? Or how about a claw hammer or a tomahawk?


Gyan said...

"300 million privately owned firearms that prevent government tyranny."

This statement and sentiment is absurd.
Did Russia 1917-18, France 1793, Iraq under Saddam lack privately owned firearms?

America is awash in firearms but is sinking in tyranny and there are no indication whatsoever that the Left is afraid of privately owned firearms,

I have read even more absurdities that the Founders explicitly put in the 2nd Amendment as a right of the people to armed insurrection!!
As if any State or Constitution ever comes up with a suicide clause.

The tyranny comes to America with 50% of the people supporting and most of the rest deeming it to be constitutional.

Drew said...

Tennessee Constitution

Article I

Section 1. That all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; for the advancement of those ends they have at all times, an unalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.

Section 2. That government being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

Gyan said...

The citation is irrelevant to my point.

In a (perfect) state of laws, the persons and their property are secured by laws.

However, it is the citizens themselves that may maintain the state of law by their individual weaponary but the key point is in the state of laws, the citizen keeps his weapons for the sake of Community (ideally speaking).
The dynamics should be–the State secures the citizen but that securing may done by the citizens collectively (rather than having a specially designated police force).

If the citizen is back to using weaponry for self-defense, then he presumes that he is no longer in the state of laws, but in the state of nature and that is not complimentary to the state of America.
he may be right, of course.