Knowledge has limits, ignorance does not

The anti-gun people are sometimes their own worst enemy. Even the title, Gun Control: A Long Over Due Argument Still Unresolved, displays Robert Waddell’s profound ignorance. Here is more:

For all the gun enthusiasts who get the Second Amendment wrong by ignoring “a well regulated militia…” portion of the amendment thinking that all Americans have the right to bear arms and that anyone can get a gun without a waiting period or a back ground check or who can just buy a clip that was intended for hunting, maybe hunting people, which is what Congresswoman Giffords’s assailant was aiming for.

Ridiculous, but seriously for the gun enthusiasts, the framers of the Constitution never intended that Americans arm themselves to the teeth. In fact, any group that hides behind the barrel of a gun and the skirts of the Bible must have a deep sense of inadequacy. A gun after all is a powerful phallic symbol.

Vehemently up holding the right to bear arms, without thought, rhyme or reason kills Democracy every time someone steps up to defend this particular right. Isn’t it the right of the people to be safe from harm?

The Supreme Court ruled in Heller and McDonald that, essentially, all Americans do have the right to bear arms.

The “clip” used in the shooting of Congresswoman Gifford would not be claimed by the manufacture or any gun owner that I know as being particularly well suited for hunting.

I doubt Waddell has bothered to read any of the framers thoughts on the utility of possessing firearms. Or else it is a deliberate lie when he makes claims about their intent. Waddell also demonstrates the validity of Markley’s Law.

“Without thought, rhyme or reason”? Even if you were to ignore the Supreme Court extremely well thought out and reasoned ruling my bookshelf alone would keep Waddell busy reading full time for several months.

He is apparently ignorant of the fact that we do not live in a democracy and that arms in the hands of the individual defend against our right to vote being taken away.

And finally he exposes his most profound ignorance by asking if there isn’t a right to be safe from harm. The answer is an empathic, “No!”. You, and society, have a right to seek justice from those that inflicted harm. But you don’t have a right to be safe from harm. There are very strict laws and sound reasoning behind prohibitions against prior restraint and it is time ignoramuses such as Waddell, Brady Campaign supporters and others to become familiar with the legal barriers to prior restraint because that’s what is coming down the tracks like a freight train. “Prevention of gun violence” is going to get squished like a bug under this locomotive.


23 thoughts on “Knowledge has limits, ignorance does not

  1. With the 7th Circuit saying they’re treating the 2nd like the 1st, the prior restraint thing becomes a really big deal.

    I can’t wait. 😀

  2. “You, and society, have a right to seek justice from those that inflicted harm. But you don’t have a right to be safe from harm.”

    What about public safety laws? (Salus populi suprema lex esto.)

  3. Whoops! That posted too fast.

    Doesn’t “prior restraint” only apply to the First Amendment?

  4. @ubu52, I think we had the discussion about what is and isn’t a right before. Perhaps you should revisit it.

    In regards to prior restraint since the Seventh Circuit just ruled that the Second Amendment is analogous to the First Amendment I believe prior restraint will now be a consideration for infringement of the Second Amendment.

  5. Joe,

    Here’s a good essay for you to read:

    This paragraph is from that essay: “If a right is subject to an exception, any exception, then the principle on which the exception is founded is, of necessity, superior to the right itself; else there is no exception. If the felon exception, or the prohibition of possession by those subject to restraining orders, those dishonorably discharged from the armed services, or those who are habitual users of marijuana (all current disqualifications under federal law), is justifiable because it is necessary or desirable to protect the public, then clearly the interest of “public safety” is superior to any individual’s right to keep and bear arms. In sum, public safety trumps a “right” to keep and bear arms; since it is superior to the “right,” it absolutely defines the scope of the “right.”

    Public safety (the safety of the people) isn’t an enumerated right, it’s the supreme law. Salus populi suprema lex esto.

  6. Ubu,

    There is truth to that, if you accept the exception as valid. However, the Constitution isn’t constructed that way, and wasn’t meant to be superseded by public safety concerns.

  7. at least, not without an amendment to that effect. Go ahead, propose one…

  8. Regarding the title of the post; there is also a nearly infinite number of lies and very few truths (this is what is regarded by leftists as “simple-mindedness”).

    On the same token; destruction is easy while production is difficult (note that the producers are the targets of the left along with the freedom that makes production possible, and the enthusiasm that initiates it).

    I think we’d be talking here about entropy, except that human nature has a will behind it. I’ll call it “societal entropy” then– the law, the dark side, of human nature that favors decline and destruction over enlightenment and advancement. Societal entropy emanates significantly from public schools, otherwise I’d say it should be junior high school class subject. It would start with a preamble; “There are two creative, productive, wealthy families in a village. The village also has one chief, one law enforcer, three robbers, one rapist, five hustlers, thirty children and twenty jealous adults who formed a community organizing committee…”

  9. The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits. – Albert Einstein

    I have nothing further to add.

  10. Safe from harm… Safe from harm… tap tap tap… hmmm Oh yeah…

    Look up Jackie Mason’s vids on gun control, where he points out that all manner of things would have to b e regulated to make one “safe from harm”.

    The supreme right of “Life” as enumerated in the Declaration of Independence carries with it the obvious right of defending that life – for oneself and others of value to the individual (family, for example).

    But, a right to be safe from harm means that there is a right to being defended by an outside person or persons.

    When I have the right to require ANYTHING of another individual, I have the right to enslave others in my service.

    Last I checked we eliminated that – at high cost of blood and treasure – about 150 years ago.

    ObamaCare has the same problem – in the end it will require health professionals to provide services, because healthcare has been declared a right.

    You own yourself, no one else does. You have the right to life, liberty and to pursue happiness. You have the right to defend those. You don’t have the right to require those things (or the defense of them) from any other person – unless by mutual consent (called a contract…).

    I woulda writ FedZilla a letter but I couln’t spell Pbbbbt! and that’s all I gotta say.

  11. @ubu52, I think you failed to read and/or comprehend the article you quoted or you deliberately took the quote out of context in an attempt to change the meaning. The entire thrust of Snyder’s article is that to carve out even one exception for a right is to destroy that right. Hence the Second Amendment is absolute and there should not be an exception such as the exception for the possession of firearms by felons.

  12. I second Joe’s comment: I’ve read several essays by Jeff Snyder, and while he tends to focus on Second Amendment rights, he makes it very clear in his essays that he doesn’t like any exception to any of our rights.

    From the essay itself:

    Before inquiring into this matter, it is necessary to make some preliminary observations to avoid misunderstanding. In arguing, as I will below, that our rights are not subject to any exceptions, I do not wish to be mistaken as arguing that we therefore may not be held accountable for the consequences of the exercise of our rights, that we may not be punished if we violate the rights of others, or that we may not be deprived of life or liberty by due process of law.

    This goes right to the point I was going to make. We can have machine guns, rocket launchers, and cannons, and still pass laws for the public safety: “Do not discharge these things unless our town is under attack, and they are used to defeat the enemy; or unless they are discharged under circumstances to ensure that no one will get hurt.” Laws against murder, rape, and setting traps for people are all laws to protect the “public safety”. Laws banning guns does nothing for public safety. Actually, banning guns threatens public safety, because it puts the innocent at the mercy of the evil.

    Oh, and thanks, Ubu, for shoing me an essay by Jeff that I haven’t read!

  13. Joe,

    In your perfect world, the Second Amendment is absolute!

    My reading comprehension is fine. I’m so sorry to have shattered your world.

  14. Shattered? Naw, we already had a pretty good idea what you are.

    As to the subject of the post, I’ll borrow from the Dresden Files on the subject of evil vs. “Or maybe stupid,” Ebenezar countered.

    I thought about it. “Not sure which is scarier.”

    Ebenezar blinked at me, then snorted. “Stupid, Hoss. Every time. Only so many blackhearted villains in the world, and they only get uppity on occasion. Stupid’s everywhere, every day.” Ebenezar McCoy

  15. If “public safety” is SUCH a huge concern, ubu, could you justify Dubya’s PATRIOT Act and the warrantless wiretaps?

  16. @ubu52, If you claim you read and understood Snyder’s article then you must be admitting that you deliberately misrepresented it to us. Why? And did you really think you wouldn’t be caught?

  17. Joe,

    I read and understood the article. I know he is pro-gun but he laid out a very rational discussion that concerns all of our rights, not just 2A.

    I didn’t misrepresent his article. I merely snipped a paragraph that I found interesting but I linked to the entire thing.

    Basically none of our rights are absolute because they all have exceptions. (Didn’t someone just mention the Patriot Act?)

    His closing paragraph:

    “With the foregoing, then, I hope to have provided some basis for advancing the following claim: A right, to be a right, must be absolute, that is, subject to no exceptions, and held or respected as an end in itself, not as a means to some other end. Otherwise, it does not stand outside and above the law, but becomes subject to it, a mere creature of legislative action, majority rule, and the peripatetic opinions of judges. If the right is not absolute, you absolutely have no right.”

  18. And if you took it like that, that means that you technically have no 1st and 5th Amendment rights either…

  19. And I am asking you directly, did you support the PATRIOT Act as it was currently written? Or not?

  20. Basically none of our rights are absolute because they all have exceptions.

    It amazes me that you think you could write this, presenting it as something approximating a synposis (at least, in your mind) of the article you quoted, and follow it immediately with the blockquote you did.

    If you cannot see the error of your words when they are in that close proximity to what the author actually wrote, it is fair to say that you will never see it.

    Reading comprehension fail indeed, but worse is the underlying thought process fail…

  21. @ubu52, Ditto what Linoge said. Read the article again very carefully. He is saying that the Bill of Rights has not been honored and that this is wrong.

  22. “Read the article again very carefully. He is saying that the Bill of Rights has not been honored and that this is wrong.”

    Correct. Now you are agreeing with me. That’s exactly how I understood it. The Bill of Rights has NOT been honored: “A right, to be a right, must be absolute.”

    If the Bill of Rights HAD been honored, those rights would be absolute.

    (I see his argument as one that we are losing rights by allowing exceptions to the various rights.)

  23. So now to compound your reading comprehension problems, you are going to delve into circular logic – to whit, we can infringe on individual rights because they are not absolute because they have been infringed upon?

    *headdesk* I do not know why I even bother – trying to have a rational conversation with you is well and truly useless.

Comments are closed.