Quote of the day—Janaye Ingram

The second amendment is clear and has been affirmed by the Supreme Court, but we cannot sit on our hands while innocent people are shot and while the gun lobby finds more ways for people to have access to guns.

Janaye Ingram
March 14, 2014
Fighting Fire With Fire Isn’t A Solution For Gun Control
[So… her belief is that the Second Amendment guarantees people the right to keep and bear arms but we should just ignore that and find ways to restrict access to guns. If the Bill of Rights is just a smorgasbord to be selected from as public opinion changes then it doesn’t mean anything at all. We could just as well find ways to restrict access to religion, free speech, and a fair trial.

Ms. Ingram should be careful what she asks for. She may get it.—Joe]

12 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Janaye Ingram

  1. Is there a breeding program or are these people like cockroaches that multiply in the dark?

    It seems that they come out from every crack and under every rock spouting this idiocy…

    • It’s not a breeding program, per se. Rather, it’s called “public education”. Actually public education is a subset of an over-all program of psychological warfare. And you are correct; it is everywhere. It creeps in through the cracks, as it were, in your own home.

  2. “The fourth amendment is clear and has been affirmed by the Supreme Court, but we cannot sit on our hands while innocent people are harmed and while the drug lobby finds more ways for criminals to deny police access to their illicit goods.”

    Sad part is I bet she’d nod in agreement with the above.

    Also note that her fear isn’t criminals having guns but “people”.

    • “The First Amendment is clear and has been affirmed by the Supreme Court, but we cannot sit on our hands while innocent children are indoctrinated and while the religion lobby finds more ways for people to have access to Holy Scripture.”

      We can use anything in the BoR as an example of just how silly this is, but I’m not entirely sure she’d disagree with any of it.

  3. Liberals refuse to accept the data that more guns = less crime, and keep predicting – wrongly – that every loosening of “gun control” laws will lead to the proverbial Wild West, blood-in-the-streets scenario.

    Who is anti-science, exactly?

    I will admit that the people denying evolution tend to lean to the right, but no one has ever put across an argument that that belief will result in bad foreign, economic, domestic, or whatever policy. And since believers in astrology tend to lean left, they have no basis to point fingers anyway.

    • With the more guns -> less crime thing, the liberal solution is to doctor the data until the answer changes. John Lott documented that either in an appendix to the second printing of “More guns, less crime” or in the sequel to that, I forgot. Some fakers at CMU took his data (yes, he made it available to anyone who asks for it, as a real scientist would), deleted carefully selected eighty-five percent of it, and then showed that the remaining 15% contradicted what Lott originally showed. Well, duh. If I could cherry pick 15% of any arbitrary data set, I could show that Russia is richer than the USA, or that it’s cold enough that the whole USA is currently covered with glaciers, or that it’s warm enough that there is no ice left anywhere in the world. But such actions, of course, are not science; the correct term for them is “fraud”.

  4. “We could just as well find ways to restrict access to religion, free speech, and a fair trial.”

    What do you mean, “could”? It’s been happening for a long time.

  5. “…we cannot sit on our hands while innocent people are shot…”

    Who is demanding that? The playbook of evil is very short and rather stupid. This age-old play is to make up a false premise and then agrue from it as both established fact and main point. If we take the bait, and we almost always do, the subject is changed from human rights to something else entirely.

    The established “fact” is, gun rights supporters demand inaction in the face of murder and the “main point” is that getting guns out of the hands of the law-abiding will reduce murder”. Both are are totally false and completely beside the point.

    If we focus on human rights the issue is very simple (as the truth always is). Exercising the right to self defense by keeping and bearing arms is an important response to the existence of violent crime, and seeking justice for violent crime after the fact is the next best thing. Restrictions on weapon possession plays no part whatsoever in either self-protection or justice, except to hinder both.

    We can take one of the ploys of the Left and turn it right around, and then it would actually make sense;
    “IF it could save the life of just one child, shouldn’t we all be armed at all times?”

    OR

    “Enough is enough! We cannot sit on our hands while innocent people are subject to violent crimes of all sorts– We must for once fully recognise and uphold the second amendment by eliminating all weapon restrictions NOW so people can properly defend themselves at all times and places!”

    There. Fixed it.

  6. Well lady, if you wanna stop murders, there’s the urban centers, go hang around after midnight and try to get Sumdood and Ray-Ray to talk it out.

    No? You don’t wanna?

    That’s what I thought.

  7. In fairness, the right to assembly, to seek redress, and to due process have already been canceled.

  8. The solution to this is to restrict their rights in ways it bites them on the ass. They will never be convinced any other way. Logical arguments require the other side to actually possess a brain.

Comments are closed.