Friday, April 20, 2007
Ted Nugent
Ted Nugent comes out swinging against those who would move to limit our second amendment rights. This is right in line with comments from Linderman and myself the other day.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
AddThis
Always sniffing for the truth
Contributors
Links
- Love and Lunchmeat
- Long Island Prepper
- Fredo's Mets Blog
- Continental Sausage
- Human Events
- Maker's Mark
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Newt Gingrich
- NRO
- Pro Ecclesia
- Ralfy's Whisky Reviews
- Red Albany
- Res Publica et Cetera
- Sour Mash Manifesto
- Straight Bourbon
- Taki Mag
- The American Conservative
- The American Spectator
- The Anchoress Online
- The Politico
- The Weekly Standard
- Wild Turkey Bourbon
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(477)
-
▼
April
(34)
- Romney (Re)Defines the Enemy
- Congrats, D.C.!
- Hey Linderman...
- Carbon emissions: actually the fault of Indonesia?
- Wedding Dress
- alec baldwin
- "You are useless, Arec Bawdwin"
- Ted Nugent
- Poll #s
- Rudy flipping around on PBA
- Today's Image
- Partial birth abortions...
- For the sake of his sorrowful passion,
- 2008 Power Rankings
- Rudy's story keeps changing
- Obama flaunting success
- Chew on this...
- Mitt is frustrating me
- As if Peggy Noonan wasn't already the best
- Forbes endorses Rudy
- NBC and CBS Want Sick Children To Die
- The NBA should be dissolved
- Carlos Slim Helu overtakes Buffett
- Global warming
- Maggie G is disgusted with Rudy
- Get your anthropogenic global warming before it's ...
- Cella on Conservatism
- Thought for the Day
- Pelosi...
- Where is Our John Howard?
- Pelosi, part deux
- Fundraising
- The Fred Thompson Buzz
- 1Q Fundraising
-
▼
April
(34)
3 comments:
The counter argument to Nugent's is given here.
The author's basic premise is that if we outlaw guns, gun violence will go away. I have no statistics, but I don't see why this argument should be accepted on its face. First, if private ownership of guns were made illegal, in no way does that guarantee that criminals couldn't obtain them. Drugs are illegal, yet they are readily available. Alcohol was illegal during prohibition but it was also available. So I would put the burden of proof on anyone who claims the situation would be different for guns. Second, the only people who would not have access to guns if they were outlawed are by definition law-abiding citizens. Therefore, I'd like to see the numbers indicating how many crimes have been prevented in the past (and would cease to be prevented in a "gun-free" future) by private gun-owning citizens.
Most importantly to me, his argument calls for a breach of contract. Our Constitution (inclusive of the Bill of Rights) was established on the principle that the people would give the State authority to govern only if certain conditions were met. One of those explicit conditions is that the state never adbridge the people's fundamental right to defend themselves, including and especially to defend themselves from the state.
"Abridge"
Dang keyboard.