Quote of the day—John Bachar

There are hundreds of studies by dozens of professional organizations—such as the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association—that seek a foolproof methodology for identifying people likely to commit violence, but no definitive method has been found. Therefore, the quest for a gun control law that would accomplish the reduction in firearm killings to near zero is delusional.

Clearly, the only way to reduce the number of firearm killings to zero is to abolish gun ownership.

My proposal for a humane, revised second amendment would read: “No person may own, keep or use a firearm. Only members of well-regulated law enforcement organizations and the military may bear, but not own, firearms.”

John Bachar
May 23, 2018
Rewriting the Second Amendment
[Yup, I can see that. The minute gun ownership is banned firearm killings would go to zero. It simply wouldn’t be possible for anyone to use their guns anymore.

[end sarcasm]

And this Einstein claims to be a mathematician. It’s possible is smart in some very narrow field but he clearly doesn’t understand the Bill of Rights, U.S. history, criminology, or psychology.

This guy has crap for brains.

If he had even a glimmer of understanding in those fields he would realize the rate of killings where guns were used would very quickly reach levels not seen since the Civil War.—Joe]

11 thoughts on “Quote of the day—John Bachar

  1. For extra comic relief, look at his bio (right arrow link under his picture in that article).
    One illustration of “crap for brains” is that his proposed wording clearly says that police and military may bear arms — but not use them since that clause only exempts them from the prohibition against bearing arms, not the prohibition against using one.

  2. I was kind of with him in the first paragraph, then he went bat crap crazy.

    The unicorn worshipers of the cult of zero firearms deaths totally ignore the fact that “H. Sapiens” have found ways to do lethal violence against each other for millennia before some unknown Chinese alchemist mixed charcoal sulfur and saltpeter in the first millennium A.D.

    Firearms are more efficient than rocks, arrows, blades, etc. Firearms also allow weaker, and less trained persons a measure of equality with thugs who wish to do them harm. Waving a magic wand to do away with firearms will not end deaths by violence. History is rife with mass murders committed without firearms, sometimes disguised as war, but often just plain killing.

    • They don’t care. They have this bizarre fucking fetish with “gun deaths”without any consideration for homicide committed with any other weapon or lack thereof. It’s all about feelings, and penis sizes, with very little regard for fact, history, and real common sense.

  3. All I can say to him and any other gun grabber is ” fuck you, I like guns “

  4. The only way I can think of that would reduce gun violence to zero would be to arrange for a planet-killing asteroid to reset evolution on this planet. And even then, it would just be a massive, ballistically-based extinction event, not seen since the late Cretaceous.

  5. “If he had even a glimmer of understanding in those fields he would realize [that under a gun ban] the rate of killings where guns were used would very quickly reach levels not seen since the Civil War.”

    Oh, they have much more than a glimmer– In the minds of the confederacy of authoritarians, the mass death you speak of is a feature, not a bug.

    Also they’ll pretend to interpret your last sentence there, not as a warning but as a threat. Hence you’re a “terrorist” who just made a “terrorist threat”.

    “My proposal for a humane, revised second amendment would read: ‘No person may own, keep or use a firearm. Only members of well-regulated law enforcement organizations and the military may bear, but not own, firearms.'”

    His use of “humane” reminds me of the calls by Progressives, back in the early 20th Century, for scientists to produce a “humane gas” for exterminating those people who posed a nuance to “The Big Organization of Our Society” as George Bernard Shaw put it.

    The confederacy would love to turn the entire Bill of Rights into a bill of anti-rights. This is the classic, age-old thinking of the criminal mind. It goes perfectly with Obama’s declaring the constitution a “Charter of Negative Rights”. He’s resentful because the constitution places limits on government power rather thanAlso his use of “humane” reminds me of the calls by Progressives, back in the early 20th Century, for scientists to produce a “humane gas” for exterminating those people who posed a nuance to “The Big Organization of Our Society” as George Bernard Shaw put it. on The People. He thinks it should be the other way around. Billions of (anti-American) people around the world agree with him too.

    • “Billions of (anti-American) people around the world agree with him too.” — Lyle

      I am but one American man.

      They’re gonna need reinforcements.

  6. It’s my experience that mathematicians and statisticians are completely inept at interpreting the results of their own data.

    I just had this similar discussion online with a PhD who made the mic drop argument that fewer guns equals fewer deaths, period. Considering the very predictable, unintended consequences of a firearms prohibition or registry, it is entirely likely these activities would cause far greater deaths.

  7. I’m going to go with his theme that detecting latent violent criminals would not work out well when only the government has firearms and one of those guys is in charge.

    For instance, Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Maduro, and Castro would have escaped such detection and that worked out real well for us, right?

    No, I will keep my guns just in case I am ever around John Bachar because you never know, he might be violent.

Comments are closed.