Probably one of the most ridiculous articles I’ve read recently, this article in The Atlantic. Some of the more ridiculous quotes from it:
“We have every right to stop uses of corporate money that impair the public good, just as we can break up monopolies, require firms to pay for the pollution they cause, and stop misleading advertising.” –Where exactly does this “right” come from, may I ask?
“Indeed, this variety of paid “speech” is sometimes a form of violence against society itself. Violent storytelling has been part of every society since Homer’s and the Bible’s. But, as the writer Philip Green notes, it’s too often now presented as an “aestheticised — fetishised… source of visceral pleasure” that subordinates “all other content to the fascination with sumptuous violence.”‘– Speech can never be violent. Please provide me an example of when you have been physically harmed by speech.
“But cheating in markets destroys them as surely as cheating destroys sports. To keep boxing viable, we ban lead weights in gloves. Similarly, we’ve agreed that cigarette companies’ association of smoking with the Marlboro man’s manliness or Lauren Bacall’s sexiness was cheating, not free speech. Today’s marketing of guns repeats the same market-distorting errors, taking advantage of human nature to harm individuals, not protect them.”– I’m confused, who is getting cheated here? Any exchange is mutually beneficial to each party by its very nature, or it would have never occurred in the first place. One might certainly find it morally reprehensible that we associate manliness with cigarette smoking, however one is free to believe that, whether that idea came to you through your own deliberations, or someone/something (ie. an ad) influenced you to believe it so. Regardless of what courts or opinion police may decide, it is still part of the spectrum of free speech that ought not (and Constitutionally, should not) be regulated. Corporations are not people; that’s a given. However, corporations must have the same “right” of free speech as individuals. Just because an individual is acting through a corporation, it doesn’t change the nature of the right to free speech. Individuals do not use their rights because they are acting through a corporation (I’m paraphrasing someone here, not sure who though). There is no logical basis for differentiating between an individual making a statement themselves vs. making that statement through a corporation.
By what stretch of the imagination, are police ever ‘outgunned’, as Joe Biden claims. To quote Bill Anderson, how often do criminals use “machine guns, flash-bang grenades, troop carriers, tanks, and other combat material”? A police officer with just his side-arm could be ‘outgunned’ in a specific scenario by (already banned) automatic firearms, however anytime they call for backup, there’s no chance police are ever going to be ‘outgunned’. It’s pretty clear police these days are nearly as heavily armed as the military. Single shot, semi-automatic rifles in no way result in police being outgunned.
Stories like this are exactly why people need to carry guns. In Detroit, a grandmother was being robbed and attacked by a young man when on the city bus. She took it into her owns hands, when no one else on the bus was willing to help her, and pulled out her 9MM and began shooting at the perpetrator. Why should we disarm individuals like this grandmother from the means to defend themselves from criminals? We shouldn’t.
(Be careful, ^^^^this may kill you)
The frenzy school officials have been making over guns is becoming completely fanatic. This time, a Bronx school was locked down because a 12-year old mentioned a Nerf gun, which was left at home, to another student. So, rather than asking the student about the gun and what he was talking about, the student aide thinks it’s appropriate to call the police so the school can be locked down and a SWAT team can run around with real assault weapons, just to find out that he was talking about a Nerf gun?
This is why I love America (sometimes). The only reason marijuana has such a stigma surrounding it is its arbitrary ban.
This article on why why young women want AR-15s is very revealing. It’s common sense. Many women would not be able to physically defend themselves from a larger male attacker without the aid of some kind of weapon. From there, it’s easy to see why women would want to choose the most effective means available to defend themselves. Why should we remove this option from the table from those who need it the most? This is one reason why second amendment activists refer to gun control as “discriminatory.”
I LOVE the thought of 3-D printers being able to reproduce just about anything, even guns. The revolution of 3-D printers could be huge for the issue of gun control and I’m hoping it will lead to a new burst of freedom with regard to the Second Amendment, rather than more massive government intervention.
On the one hand, 3-D printers, as they become more available and more effective, will make it nearly impossible for gun control to have any substantial effect; any citizen would be able to potentially reproduce a gun right in their own home. Even if you go to the extreme of confiscating weapons, a 3-D printer could easily replace any gun that would be confiscated. But then, it’s easy to believe that the federal government wouldn’t stop at that; they could conceivably license who may own and operate 3-D printers, and regulate what can be legally produced on such a printer. Even worse, I could see them banning 3-D printers generally; they would probably reserve the right to use such printers to the government itself, so as to choose for everyone else what will and will not be printed. They would try to make the assertion that “it’s for our own good” and that somehow “society cannot be trusted with this power because we will abuse it.” But since when has the government not abused its powers? Have we not learned that the government cannot be trusted with any power? The reality is using a 3-D printer to produce a weapon would be no different that using any other machine to do so. It would just be simpler and cheaper, which should be applauded. It can admitted that any gang in possession of a 3-D printer capable of producing cheap weapons wouldn’t be desirable. However, we also have to understand why gangs have power: they’re only capable of holding power when honest citizens cannot be armed and when activities (such as drugs, etc.) are made illegal and are therefore immensely profitable to those willing to defy the law. If we get the government out of all these areas, we can mitigate all these unwanted effects the are created by government prohibitions and aren’t inherent in a free society.
I sincerely hope the government stays out of this business and lets it evolve unabated so the industry can flourish rather than be stifled by government.