Wednesday, August 24, 2011

QOTD- Tam Slick

In an aside about helmet laws, Tam brings the full force of RIGHTS down on the 'anti' argument about guns:
...this is one of my biggest gripes about wading into fact- and data-laden poo-flinging arguments with anti-gunners about crime rates and murders-per-100k and so forth. The correct answer is "Where the hell do you get off thinking you can tell me I can't own a gun? I don't care if every other gun owner on the planet went out and murdered somebody last night. I didn't. So piss off."

Sometimes I think we try too hard. We really DO have all of the facts, figures, and statistics to back up our side on the gun issue. More powerfully though, we have THE RIGHT to own, carry, and use our guns; and more importantly, we have the RIGHT whether codified in the law or not.

Because we have the right to life, and the right to defend that life, period.



Weer'd Beard said...

This is an interesting, but I feel an academic argument.

Nope the 2nd Amendment doesn't make exceptions for statistics or the common good et al.

Still the raw constitutional argument never strikes me as effective as simply pointing out that just about every data set ever covered points out that guns are a net good for society.

Same idea with the TSA, it doesn't matter if every other passenger on my flight is wearing a suicide vest, or carrying a knife for Jew-decapitation. 4th Amendment says you can't search me without just cause, nor the Afghan citizen with crazy eyes and traditional Muslim garb.

Still the fact that the TSA can't find their own ass with two hands and a detailed map gives an even stronger reason to send the TSA to the unemployment lines.

I guess my issue is that while such arguments make perfect sense to fans of individual liberty, I suspect the bulk of the voting block are skittish sheep who would prefer to trade liberty for vague promises.

Old NFO said...