Quote of the day—Thomas Sowell

There are people who have never fired a shot in their life who do not hesitate to declare how many bullets should be the limit to put into a firearm’s clip or magazine. Some say ten bullets but New York state’s recent gun control law specifies seven.

Virtually all gun control advocates say that 30 bullets in a magazine is far too many for self-defense or hunting — even if they have never gone hunting and never had to defend themselves with a gun. This uninformed and self-righteous dogmatism is what makes the gun control debate so futile and so polarizing.

Thomas Sowell
January 22, 2013
Do Gun Control Laws Control Guns?
[While this is true a case can be made that the ignorance of gun control advocates does not matter. Their ignorance is irrelevant both to them and to us. The only important fact to them is that control is lacking. Independence and freedom, no matter the form, are what they are fighting.

Their single minded goal makes our mission all the more clear. Efforts on our part to remedy their ignorance are wasted. Our only goal is to defeat them.—Joe]


7 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Thomas Sowell

  1. Agreed. Defeat them.

    Yesterday it was 10 rounds, today it is 7, tomorrow it will be 2, and eventually none.

    It is arbitrary, capricious, and irrational. I no longer accept ignorance as an excuse. We live in the age of the internet and about a third of Americans own firearms. The smallest effort to investigate is quickly rewarded. The level of irresponsibility and laziness exhibited to outlaw something our Constitution recognizes as guaranteed and not subject to their legislation, is a travesty.

    • Scrape a gun control advocate; find a neofeudalist.

      Because as I’ve commented before, our ‘leaders’ and ‘important people’ will have access to ‘special licenses’ as well as armed bodyguards. The peasantry? Well, they’re just shit outta luck.

  2. Arguing with gun control advocates is about as effective as trying to break a concrete light pole with your forehead. You just get bloody, and the light pole doesn’t listen.

    We need a two pronged attack: Educate those who have not yet become so indoctrinated that they refuse to listen and defeat those who have.

  3. Defeat? What does that look like? We can’t tell people what to think. There will always be people invested in crazy/dumb/silly causes. I have hope for some sort of appleseed-like thing making gun culture more prevalent/understood, but I don’t think we’ll ever fully win. Even if somehow we manage to beat every gun law back through judicial/legislative awesomeness, people will still try to lobby for the 2nd to be repealed or interpreted differently.

    But then again, I may be cynical at the moment because my friends in CA are still reeling from the (admittedly far better than expected, but still frustrating) recent legislation, and I am sad for them. 🙂

    • You’re right in saying that the war never ends. It’s as old as humanity, but that isn’t to say that freedom can’t win victories along the way.

      It’s like battling weeds in your garden or pests in your house. You can never eliminate them, but you can certainly beat them back into a few unused corners of the garden, or a few cracks in the woodwork, where they belong.

      Our problem is that we’ve been fighting the Dark Side on its terms for so long that we don’t even have any terms of our own.

  4. Joe nailed it 100%. I don’t think Sowell fully thought that one through. Being attacked by ignorant fools is preferable to being attacked by informed geniuses, but either way the point is that basic human rights are being questioned.

    The attacks will always be successful to some degree if the principles of right and wrong are taking second place (or more likely ignored altogether) to minutae such as the number of “bullets” in a “clip”. Our arguing that sort of thing is like a victim being raped by a policeman, arguing over how deep or prolonged the penetration is going to be.

    The instant we’ve allowed ourselves to be drawn into such arguments, we have lost. We’ve lost because we’ve ceded the right, and now we’re just haggling with criminals over the details of the violation.

    What maybe we’re NOT seeing clearly enough is that the criminals in this case believe they have to convince us of anything. They do, and that is why this fight is ours to lose. Get it?

  5. My counter to any of these nuts, bolt and features arguments has been;
    “If life and liberty are worth protecting, then surely they are worth protecting with anything and everything humanly possible” or something to that effect, maybe following up with “If you seek to limit the means by which we might protect our very lives, then you are more then merely suspect. You’ve crossed the line into criminality.” See; not one word ever need be uttered about round counts, action types, features or any such distractions while you’re under attack by criminals. This is basic combat doctrine – distract and overwhelm. Shit, the left understands combat far better than we.

Comments are closed.