One of the most consistently annoying things that anti-gunners do is to imply that criminals and legal, lawful gun owners are the same.
Now, anti-gunners will deny this and say, “Of course, legal gun owners aren’t the same as criminals!”, but consider the gun control legislation that those people keep pushing for. That legislation can only be applied to law-abiding citizens because, by definition, a criminal is not abiding by the law.
Seems obvious, I know, but that underlying assumption of guilt due to gun ownership is clear from the anti-gun policies put forth.
Finally, though, we have an academic study from the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health which, while arguing for using a public health model as a basis for gun control, tells us what we (meaning law-abiding gun owners) have known for years: legal gun owners and criminals are not the same. Elizabeth McGuigan writes,
When clumsily attempting to address the failure of their presupposed conclusion that fewer gun laws in one state leads to more homicides in another state, the authors include an astounding sentence that must be addressed:
“Consumers of legal firearms may be a different population from consumers of illegal firearms.”
If there were any question about the bias of this study, this sentence would dismiss that outright.
Yes, law-abiding citizens who decide to purchase firearms are not the same individuals as those who choose to break the law and misuse likely illegal firearms for crimes such as homicides. However, gun control laws, by definition, only affect the common law-abiding citizen.
Public health models cannot distinguish between the hundreds of healthy, safe and legal reasons Americans purchase firearms and the actions of criminals because these models assume the gun is the problem.
So, basically, what we have from the writers of this study is a last-ditch effort to be honest buried in the fine print of the study so that they can say that they were honest.
Okay, we’ll give them that they were honest in that portion, but by advocating for a public health model for gun control, they deny the reality that criminals are the cause of gun violence, not the gun. In this way, the folks writing this study were, at best, willfully ignorant or, at worst, grossly dishonest.
But that’s what I’ve come to expect from “academia” pushing for gun control.
Talk about a Du-uh moment. Yet the idea behind such a study even being needed, tells us the mindset of the opposition to the 2nd Amendment.
Face it, we’re faced with a President being inaugurated this coming January, who is vocally public and in private, in favor of vivisecting the 2nd Amendment. He’s promised to do so by executive action, effectively bypassing Congress. Such an action, is central to the reason the 2nd Amendment exists, and it’s our Constitutional duty to forcibly remove from office, by any and every means available, any occupier engaging in such a tyrannical action. Will such an action happen? I predict it won’t, simply because we have the attitude that any Unconstitutional action will fail against a SCOTUS decision. Historically, SCOTUS has monumentally failed to uphold the 2nd Amendment right with any measure of consistency. . The number of pro 2nd Amendment SCOTUS decisions is dwarfed by the number of anti 2nd Amendment decisions and flat out refusals to hear cases over the court’s many years.
Sadly, Biden’s inauguration will begin the Death Throes of our Republic.
Civil War is inevitable now
I agree with the first commentator of this article. We will soon be in a Civil War for this Country and the Right To Bear Arms. This is not a good thing and much like Brexit will be a long fight. I would suggest that the United States be divided up into those who believe in the Constitution as originally written and the one that it will become once the new administration come to power. The central part of the U.S. would stay free and the coasts would go Socialist/Communist. In two to 5 years, it would be easy to once again unite the country after the populations in the S/C Zone are starving. Game on.
Just like legal users of opioids are different than those who get their’s in alleys, on street corners, or delivered by special courier.
I served as a deputy sheriff back in the day and I am a serious supporter of the Second Amendment. I know people say, “Why do we need guns? We have police and military. I always come back with a movie I saw where only the police and military had guns. The movie was Schindler’s List. The idea of the people having the right to keep and bear arms goes back to the Revolution. The wording of the amendment is clear, but you have to understand English as it was spoken back in the day and some history. A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the well-being of a free state. The militia was not a standing army, but all men from 16 to 45, sworn to keep necessary weapons and ammunition to defend the state, or community. If a man lacked the equipment, the captain saw that he was given what he needed, Well regulated in 18th Century English meant trained and able to act as citizen/soldiers. The National Guard and Reserves are not the militia, they are part of our standing military and can be nationalized, the militia cannot be conscripted. Any time you find the phrase ‘the people’ in the Constitution, it means the private citizens that government IS SUPPOSED TO WORK FOR. Therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right, and that right cannot be altered. The Second Amendment was ratified 243 years ago, and the ONLY reason to try to reepeal it now is that the government plans to do something which will make us want to shoot them.
Perfectly said, sorry so late. Patiently waiting.
It is called (STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES) and that my friends is the (DEMONCRATS) way of thinking
Comments are closed.