Quote of the day—Stranger

The “Right of Kings to disarm their subjects” was recognized nearly as far back as history goes. As does the “Right of free people to be armed.” So the roots of the Second Amendment go back at least to the Akkadians, some 4500 years ago.

And in all that time, not even one weapons control law has ever resulted in less crime or violence.

Stranger
February 9, 2010
Comment to Origins of the bigot meme
[See also Just one question.—Joe]

8 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Stranger

  1. There are a large number of wonderful historic examples in Halbrook’s “That every man be armed”. Possibly in there, but if not readily available on-line, is Blackstone’s statement of the right to arms as a human right. The right way to interpret that statement is that it explicitly denies the “right of kings to disarm their subjects”. And indeed Britain, until recently, recognized a right to bear arms, though diluted with the disclaimer of “suitable to their station”.
    Another example I recall is the medieval practice of manumission of slaves: the newly minted freeman would be given a shield and a spear — the arms he was now entitled (and in fact expected) to possess.

  2. “And in all that time, not even one weapons control law has ever resulted in less crime or violence.”

    I would guess that it depends on how you define “less crime or violence” — I’d wager that the *king* and *his men* were subjected to “less crime or violence.” Right up until they weren’t.

    • Actually, the article clearly mentions negative correlation (meaning, as John Lott put it, “more guns, less crime”). Unfortunately reporters writing about that article got this wrong, Breitbart among them; they state in their headlines “No correlation”. That’s a weaker statement, and it would be much better to use the actual conclusion, which is exactly the one that John Lott already made so very persuasively quite some years ago.

      • Paul;
        Bingo!
        And that brings 18 USC 242 into play, where it mentions deprivation of rights resulting in death.

        We aren’t dealing people who are merely dumb, or merely misinformed, or people with good intentions who are merely mistaken in their assumptions and methods. We’re not dealing with people with whom we can get along or compromise, and then go out to dinner and drinks with afterwards. We’re talking about extremely dangerous, criminally insane radicals (and their dupes) who would see more people suffer and die on a wholesale level if they had their way.

        • Somewhat different context but same sort of people with same sort of goals: listen to David Horowitz speaking on “The War Against Judaism on the University Campus”, link to audio on http://www.seraphicpress.com . Scary stuff.

  3. “not even one weapons control law has ever resulted in less crime or violence.”
    Of course not. Lowering crime or improving safety has never been the purpose of weapon restrictions. It’s the fraudulent selling point, a deception designed to help weaken people and make them more controllable.

    It’s like I told my sister yesterday when she was describing all the wonderful things a certain school was saying about itself; “That’s just the surface stuff. The window dressing, the selling points. I don’t even look at that stuff, or consider it for a second. Throw it out. Dismiss it out-of-hand and look at the behavior over time, the results, and the reactions to the results.” Then I told her what a nice guy Ted Bundy was.

Comments are closed.