I’m glad people are really starting to notice:
When it comes to voting rights, any obstacles outrage liberals; even free government-issued IDs are viewed as disenfranchising poor and disproportionately black people. But when it comes to the right to own a gun for self-defense, liberals don’t hesitate to pile on fees, ID requirements, expensive training and onerous background checks.
That’s too bad, because many law-abiding citizens in crime-ridden neighborhoods really do need a gun for self-defense. Since poor, urban blacks are the most likely victims of violent crime, there is little doubt that they stand to benefit the most from owning guns. Research, including my own, has demonstrated this.
Your position on gun control I think is a good proxy for how committed you are to democratic popular sovereignty. The instinct for elites throughout history is to disarm the lower, non-ruling classes. You don’t have to pay much attention to a disarmed population. You can look down on them with scorn and indignation, and there’s not much they can do about it. Certainly if you want to oppress minority populations, it’s a lot easier to do that to a disarmed population rather than one that can shoot back.
Gun control has always been a weapon of the elite ruling classes to keep the masses in a state of subjugation. When all you have is the vote, you don’t really have much. Elites can manipulate the masses into voting the way elites want them to vote, or can outright manipulate the system (see Venezuela). An armed population will always have an actual say in how things are run.
Well, it is John Lott. He’s been “woke” for quite some time now :)
Funny, because I didn’t notice it was John Lott until after I linked it.
I didn’t want to be the first to call it out, but, no one can ever say that John Lott doesn’t have a good command of what will play to his base.
I’ve figured that for a long time: a politician’s stance on the 2nd Amendment tells me all I need to know about his stance on other issues.
Exactly. If a politician doesn’t trust me to be armed, that means I should not trust him to represent me.
It always boils down to: If I distrust someone, why would I give them a weapon?
“If I distrust someone, why would I give them a weapon?”
You may not be required to “give” anyone a weapon, but please remember that nowhere in the constitution does it say you can deny anyone access to weapons, just because you don’t like them.
Of course that is easily circumvented by cobbling up ruses for convicting them of crimes, after which the law-and-order crowd will cheer for denying them weapons.
But last I’d reflect that in my time, the military didn’t trust a large percentage of its troops, but did indeed give them weapons anyway.