Quote of the day—David Leonhardt

The legalization of same-sex marriage is a potent example of a dominant theme in American history: Over time, civil rights expand, and discrimination ebbs.

As a result, it’s fair to divide the major issues in American political life into two broad categories. In one category are the rights-based issues in which the future can be safely predicted. In the other category — which includes abortion, gun control and climate change — there is far less clarity about the direction of public opinion.

People who favor abortion rights can point to a woman’s right to control her body; people who oppose abortion can point to a fetus’s right to live. People who favor gun rights can point to a gun owner’s right to bear arms; people who favor gun restrictions can point to Americans’ right not to die and be injured by gun violence.

David Leonhardt
June 30, 2015
Why Gun Control and Abortion Are Different From Gay Marriage
[If you read the whole thing he makes some good points. But what is interesting is his handling of the gun issue. Almost his entire treatment of it is contained above.

It is my belief that he is in denial. He doesn’t seem to see that the Second Amendment clearly enumerates the right to keep and bear arms versus some nebulous “right” to be safe from criminal acts. He doesn’t seem to see the importance of the Heller and McDonald decisions.

While we do not have the freedom in the area of guns that we did 100 years ago we certainly are much freer than we were 20 years ago and the momentum is on our side. I could see gun rights on a trajectory that parallels gay rights but lagging by 10 or 20 years. Our “gay marriage” pinnacle analog might be the full legalization of machine guns after mandatory background checks are abolished and we have constitutional carry everywhere. And then my “I have a dream” moment will be realized.—Joe]


8 thoughts on “Quote of the day—David Leonhardt

  1. I have a new right to add.

    The right to not be punished for things I did not do.

    When can we get on that?

    • I know what you’re talking about, but the left would almost certainly not understand you. What is a right, and is inaction proof of innocence? E.g. let’s say I did not sign up for Obama care, I did not register my vehicle, I did not come to a complete stop at a stop sign when I could see empty highway for two miles in both directions, etc. To say that you did not do anything no longer works, because law makes demands that you do certain things. That’s just part of the problem of being understood.

      The main problem is that very concept of rights has been so confused and adulterated that one must always use qualifiers now when speaking of “rights” and even then you’ll run up against endless argument over the definition of the word.

      Nowadays in some circles, your statement is racist too. Assuming that you’re “white” then the very fact of your birth means you are a racist oppressor, that that you personally are liable for that racism. Doubly if you’re a while man, and it’s time you were damned well shown what it’s like to be on the other end of the oppression. “Justice” demands it. That you did “not do” anything about the sins of white people is proof of your continuing racism.

      We can’t even begin a conversation then, unless we’ve clearly defined the words “rights” and “justice” and so on, and furthermore, confusion and obfuscation being the order of the day, you won’t get any agreement after you’ve done so.

      That’s fine though, because at that point you’ve addressed the key issue, which is that your opposition either has no understanding of the basic concepts from which these arguments are made, or they do understand and are willfully and strenuously avoiding them. If you get no farther than that, you’ve either made a valuable point or you have determined that there’s no use in proceeding with the discussion.

  2. Same sex “marriage” is a smoke screen anyway. You homosexuals who fought for this are being played like a fiddle. It is only fairly recent in our history that the government stepped in and started requiring marriage licenses.

    If you know anything about the genesis and goals of the Progressive era starting in around the turn of the 20th century, you might have been able to guess that marriage licenses were a Progressive scheme to control interracial marriage and suchlike.

    You think the Confederate flag (a Democrat Party symbol too, though you didn’t know) is a symbol of oppression? Fools! Marriage licenses are worse, and you took the bait, hook, line and sinker. Dance in the street like idiots.

    Maybe later on you’ll join with us heteros in demanding that government get out of our marriage and famlies. When you figure out what’s happening, we’ll welcome you.

  3. “…and the momentum is on our side…”

    Not anymore. At the rate we’re going when Hillary becomes president Heller and McDonnald be overturned within a decade from now. Well also refusing any more gun court cases setting the precedent that whatever Patty gun control is an active even forceful conversation will be upheld by the courts.

    On top of that what is the long-term way of dealing with Bloombergs billions? Let’s say that the gun registration proposition comes to Arizona and fails? Every time it does Bloomberg will just give more and more money until it’s literally he is spending $100,000,000 to pass said proposition. And going back to the courts we already set the precedent that do you not give a shit about if the if the signatures are falsified or are not legitimate. Example Nevada which will get a similar proposition and it will pass.

    • We have been slowed down some. But they don’t have much in the way of wins to balance out our wins. The wins they have came at a very high price and are in danger of being reversed. None of our wins are in danger of being reversed.

      • So the court cases that held I – 594 didn’t happen? And judges keeping the most extreme anti-gun measures that were passed in 2013, in full on the books; and pretty much every state they were past, Those didn’t happen either?

        We have come to the point now that the Supreme Court will not take any gun cases. That’s Setting the precedent that a state can pass a measure no matter how extreme and it will pass the muster of the courts. even if it involved confiscation and mandatory buybacks. Give it a decade and I’m pretty sure the courts would hold up owning a gun to be punishable by death witeven if it involved order door forced confiscation and mandatory buybacks.of course by that time we had would’ve reached the point of no return but we are going owners and therefore to the government we are not human beings. We are vermin that need to be exterminated off the face of the earth.

        • The recent New York, Colorado, and Washington state laws resulted in many police agencies saying they would not enforce them and widespread defiance of the laws by private citizens. The Colorado law result in several politicians losing their jobs.

          The laws we have gotten passed are “sticking” with no politicians paying a price for voting with us and no law enforcement saying they would arrest people in spite of the law.

          Public opinion polls continue to show our view in gaining ground. And this is the most critical item. The courts and legislatures follow public opinion, not the other way around.

Comments are closed.