The government passing more firearms laws is not going to “do something” other than infringe on a constitutional right. This is because no gun control law in the U.S. has been proven to reduce gun crime. I often debate gun control advocates and repeatedly ask them to tell me what law, at any level of government, has resulted in a reduction of gun crimes. They can never answer that question.
November 7, 2017
How to Respond to Those Who Want to ‘Do Something’ After Texas Shooting
[It’s a variation of Just one question.—Joe]
“But if it saves one life!”
It is because that is not actually their goal.
That is the truth.
That begs the question then, since we’ve descended into the Central Planning mentality;
If it can can be shown to have some tangible benefit, any tangible benefit, is it then OK, is it moral, even laudable, for government to engage in the wholesale violation of human rights? What if we declare that anything we don’t like, or anything that might be shown to have certain negative effects, cannot be a human right? In that case we can do anything, and never be “violating a right”, because, if “We” don’t like it, or “We” don’t like the outcomes of its practice, then it is by definition NOT a “right”.
Well, that’s the Progressive way, isn’t it? And when we set out upon that path we’re no longer Americans.
Everything in the Bill of Rights is there because the founders knew from history, and from direct experience, that governments tend to hate those rights. Governments always have those tendencies, and will always claim some “greater good” as the excuse for violating freedom of speech, freedom of religion, assembly, redress, the right to bear arms, etc. While those rights are commonly attacked, never are they attacked without some claim of a better outcome, a “greater good” (“greater good” always means “greater than your rights, or even your life, because your rights, and your life, are in our way”).
And so are we going to argue, like all of the tyrants throughout history, about statistical outcomes, or are there any such things as principles and rights that are outside the jurisdiction of the would-be Central Planners, beyond their reach no matter the excuse, set aside as untouchable because they are so predictably hated by the power-hungry and yet so precious because they are God-given and essential to liberty?
Or is it really only a matter of who can punch harder, or present statistics better, or fool more people, than whom?
If it’s going to come to blows, I’m certainly not interested in fighting over the validity of statistics. If my life is to be forfeit for a cause, let it be for the notion that all Men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.
“Unalienable” means hands off. You can’t go there. No one can. It’s not up for a debate, or a vote, or a cost/benefit analysis. You don’t have the right to question it. No one on Earth has the jurisdiction. No matter now many gun owners, for example, tried to commit murder last night, I didn’t, so leave me alone. You don’t get to have that discussion where you look at what crimes other people did, or didn’t do, and use that as a pretense to attack me, or even protect me, based on that information. Even it comes out in my favor this week, you’re barking up the wrong tree because rights are not contingent on passing a cost/benefit analysis.
The Bill of rights does not come with any crime statistics thresholds, above which it becomes null and void. That’s not how it works, so don’t support the thinking of those who believe it does.
If you like stats, here’s a great one that came out of ubu52 years ago (I paraphrase);
“All criminals originate from the law-abiding segment, and so, it is not so much the criminals we need to keep an eye on, but the law-abiding population which gives rise to ALL criminals!
“That means especially you armed law-abiding, because when you snap, and there is a one hundred percent chance that plenty of you will, we sure as hell don’t want you armed to the teeth.”
If there are no higher principles setting hard limits, and if people can actually think like that, it would seem that anything goes. Fire up the ovens. Nothing is sacred. Your stats may support you today, but they’ll damn you tomorrow, depending on who gathers them and especially on who interprets them.