Quote of the day—Good Snek

Of the 10 states in the country with the lowest murder rates, half of them have some of the loosest gun laws in the country, and of those, the lowest consistently have murder rates comparable to Europe. I’m not going to tell you what to make of that, but in my mind, those states have essentially, intentionally or not, solved their violence issues, and they did it without gun control. Perhaps you may have a differing opinion, and that’s fine, but to me, knowing there is a solution to violence out there that doesn’t involve restricting rights, means that’s the only path we should pursue.

Good Snek
December 29, 2018
Gun Control: How the Media Manipulates You to Give Up Your Rights
[A stronger statement can be made and defended, such as, “Rights are not negotiable and not in any way conditional upon crime rates.” But you could get more political support for Snek’s weaker version.—Joe]


7 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Good Snek

  1. “…have solved their violence issues … without gun control”.
    I can think of two alternative ways of looking at it. One is “…have solved their violence issues by rejecting victim disarmament”. The other is “…have avoided the cultural tar pits that lead to violence issues”.

  2. My rights (specifically the right to keep and BEAR arms) exist whether you believe them, understand them, agree with them, or not. That’s why they are called RIGHTS and not privileges. My rights aren’t open for debate or subject to restriction for whatever ‘greater good’ any majority may consider utilitarian. Any attempt to neuter them will be considered an ultra-violent attack upon Liberty and will be responded to accordingly. You have been warned.

  3. As Americans, founded on the American principle of Liberty, that is the solution we have to pursue. Any solution proposed by the people we elect has to pass the strict scrutiny test of no less burdensome law, narrowly tailored exists before a right may be infringed. Intermediate Scrutiny and Rational Basis Test (aka “We can say the reason without laughing”) have no place in constitutional law any more than they have in a lawsuit interpreting our mortgage contracts.

    • Windy, as I see it, for any right, and especially an enumerated one, there should be no level of “scrutiny” that can be acceptable to its restriction. A right in and of itself should not be subject to scrutiny. A person’s actions when exercising a right should be.

      Of course, that’s not the world we live in today and how things are done is unlikely to change for the foreseeable future. So, for now, ‘strict scrutiny’ is the best deal we will get, but we should not so easily acquiesce to the use of ‘scrutiny’ when it comes to our rights

      As John Hinderaker over on the Powerline blogs points out:
      “…liberals love to talk about the rule of law, but what they mean is rule by lawyers.”

  4. “…knowing there is a solution to violence out there that doesn’t involve restricting rights, means that’s the only path we should pursue. “

    Hmm, well, first; you say “we” as though it were universally understood. But who, exactly, is “we”? It’s a serious question because there are two, polar opposite “we” in the world.

    To the “we” which wants coercive, authoritarian control over others for the sake of coercive, authoritarian control over others, that quote is anathema– The fact that it favors the non-violation of rights means it is disqualified from the get go, and the fact that it pursues a solution to violence makes it contradictory to the cause.

    Once you understand the mob mentality, the mind of Cain, the mind of King Herod who issued a death decree against all first-born male children, the same mind of the papacy which to this day claims “infallibility” along with ownership of all the world’s resources including manufactured goods and which very recently signed a joint declaration of cooperation with Islam, then you understand what I’m saying and you understand why the word “we” needs precise qualification.

    This goes to understanding the layout and nature of the tactical landscape which lies before us, and the quote of the day as posted does not seem to take this into consideration. Rather it assumes that a solution to violence is desirable and beneficial (a strange assumptiuon given world history), and, running with that assumption, it further assumes that a solution to violence which leaves enumerated rights intact is a good thing. Neither of those things is in the political class agenda, for the agenda is specifically designed to overcoming rights and promnoting violence for the sake of overcoming rights and promoting violence.

    Good Snek has thus quite perfectly stated the very things (peace and respect for the rights of others) which, to the mob mentality, to the mind of Cain, must be not only specifically avoided but must be targeted for destruction.

    So it is that from one mindset and doctrine, the quote makes perfect sense and is quite reasonable and true, yet from the other mindset and doctrine it is utterly insane because it is utterly counterproductive and furthermore, ultimately, it is actionable heresy.

    When that strange word “we” comes up then, it should pointed out exactly, precisely, and with no doubt whatsoever, no matter the reader, who is meant by “we”. Which of the two sides in the battle to the death, the war of total, permanent destruction between good and evil, is represented by the word “we”?

    Whatever one side sees as very good and reasonable, the other side will see as treason. Therefore there is no “we” and never has been since Adam and Eve. Don’t make the mistake of addressing both of the polar opposite sides as though they were a single “we” when the authoritarian alliance is dead set in destroying the allies of the perfect law of liberty. If it’s wishy-washy and centrist or “ecumenical”, designed to be presentable to both sides, then it serves only the Mob– The Mob loves that stuff, and uses it often and brilliantly.

  5. The 2A tells everyone in power they cannot “infringe” on my right. the article VI supremacy clause sez anything they do is “notwithstanding”. It has no force of “legal” law behind it. they have no authority to even write it. let alone try to enforce it. It is like your next door neighbor telling you he’s going to steal your gun from you. Act accordingly.

  6. The low crime rates in these particular states are a direct result of the demographic breakdown of those states. Gun laws are minimally involved.

Comments are closed.