Quote of the day—Bookworm

My reversal on guns came about because I realized that gun’s are a predicate requirement for individual freedom and security.  I’ve created five principles that justify this conclusion.  These principles are:  (1) Armed citizens are the best defense against the world’s most dangerous killer: government; (2) I am a Jew; (3) I am not a racist; (4) a self-defended society is a safe society; and (5) the only way gun-control activists can support their position is to lie.

October 1, 2015
Five reasons that the benefits that flow from guns far outweigh the risks inherent in guns
[There are a lot of different reasons people can reverse their position on a subject. If you want to have the power to change minds it is important to have as many different tools in your toolbox as you can. You may need to try a great number of them before you find the tool that works in any given situation.—Joe]


21 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Bookworm

  1. “…the benefits that flow from guns far outweigh the risks inherent in guns.”

    I’m sure it’s a fine essay, but the title bugs me. It is improper to consider risk/benefit analyses on human rights. Progressives do it all the time though, which is what makes them Progressives.

    “Just put them there [meaning round people up and put them before a board of inquiry] and say, Sir, or Madame, would you be so kind as to justify your existence…” — George Bernard Shaw, darling of the early 20th century Progressive movement, advocating the extermination of the lower classes on the grounds that “we cannot afford to use the Big Organization of our society to keep you alive. Your life does not benefit us, and it cannot be of much use to yourself.”

    Shaw, like all Progressives, was first assuming an authority that does not exist, and then applying a cost/benefit analysis to human life. They’re not quite so blatant nowadays, at least not when they think the cameras and microphones are running, but they will openly question just about any human right as though they have the authority to do so, and then make a cost/benefit analysis as though they had the brains to do so. Since they haven’t the authority, the brains issue is moot. They’ve certainly decided however that any right to bear arms, such as it may be, is not worth the costs, and you’re not going to ever talk a committed Progressive out of that belief.

    In the Progressive mind regarding all rights either the bearer of said right, being a member of a certain group, is unfit to be allowed to exercise it, or the right itself is too costly to society to be acknowledged. “We” (the coercive power of government and those who control it) may tolerate certain rights here and there and at certain times, but all rights are subject to on-going cost/benefit analyses by the “smarter people”.

    It is that fundamental defect in thinking, and it’s total lack of morals, that must be addressed. Playing along as though the premise had any merit is a bit like inviting the local gang leaders to sit in on otherwise legitimate city council meetings. It brings the discussion down to the level of the criminals, while elevating the criminals to some sense of legitimacy. Worse yet, it demonstrates a lack of support and defense for basic principles, thus creating a form of a Lord of the Flies world in which the un-principled realize that they do indeed have a place in the world, while those who love liberty are disheartened.

    Thus has been the last hundred years on Earth– Lord of the Flies.

    • OTOH, when pragmatic cost/benefit analysis supports the same positions as fundamental rights from a philosophical perspective, why not endorse it? It may help to convince those that are philosophical cripples and wouldn’t know a basic principle if it bit them in the shoulder-thing-that-goes-up, but do have a deep and abiding value in preserving their own skin.

      • Yes, that works, until you get into a “my study is bigger than your study” argument. We had that on this website about a month ago.

        • In which case you have lost nothing. You didn’t change their mind and they didn’t change yours.

    • Lyle, the problem is that many people don’t agree with the premise that people have any inherent rights beyond those which the government/”the people”/whatever-higher-authority “give them”. Hence they can’t talk about “liberty” and “rights” without first determining what rights, if any, people should be allowed to have. This is their “First Principle”. They reject your principles out of hand, you reject their principles out of hand, and you cannot change their position.

      But if you can say, “for the sake of argument I won’t contest your premise at this time but I can show that even with that premise we arrive at the conclusion that private ownership of firearms is a net benefit” then you have a chance of changing their mind.

      • People who think in terms of government-given rights tend to forget that it isn’t always “their people” who are running the government. They assume that government-given rights is the same thing as “the rights I approve of”.
        I would challenge that assumption by asking what would happen if “the wrong people” got to be in charge. What about their right to free speech? To demonstrate while waving “black lives matter” signs? To have abortions? To marry regardless of gender?

  2. Thanks very much for the link. And Lyle is correct that my post title assumes the Leftists’ premise, something I should have seen that from the beginning. As it is, though, since I live in deep Blue territory, I’ve long since understood that Leftists can’t wrap their minds around inherent rights. They live in a world of risk/benefit analyses, so it’s useful to defeat them at their own game and then slowly try to educate them more broadly about inherent rights in individuals, versus specifically delineated rights granted to government.

  3. Just a question….

    In the last 100 years, when have “armed citizens” fought against their “most dangerous killer government” and won?

    I’d like some examples with “ordinary armed citizens” and not the military (so military coups don’t count).

    • To the best of my knowledge there are no examples of precisely what you are asking for. There are some instance where armed citizens have made impressive, but ultimately failing, stands against killer governments. See for example: Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and to a certain extent the Treblinka prisoner uprising.

      But there is plenty of evidence (Lethal Laws: Gun Control Is the Key to Genocide) that gun control is a prerequisite to genocide. Hence a strong case can be made that the right to keep and bear arms prevents genocide.

        • Well, if you’ll confine yourself to just the 20th century, when smokeless powder, the self contained cartridge, and the basic designs of modern firearms had come from being ‘state of the art’ to being mass produced, you’ll find your research much easier.

          And more to the point, even ONE example would be enough for any rational person to gain understanding.

          But just ask the 175 million + people who were killed by their own governments…Oh that’s right, you can’t…they’re dead.

          But, from all your posts that wouldn’t really matter to you now would it?

          • It’s brought up so many times on this blog that I thought there must be one example of a case where ordinary armed citizens facing the government won. That is the theory, isn’t it?

            What I’ve noticed here in the USA is that, when armed citizens face the government (Waco, Christopher Dornen, SLA shootout), the incidents end in fire. Like the game Rock, Paper, Scissors, bullets beat knives but lose to fire.

    • Just about any successful guerrilla will serve.

      Apart from that, as Lyle explained so skillfully, the question is irrelevant.

    • Battle of Athens.

      I trust you know how to use Google, just like I trust you’ll throw out the example because ZOMG the “armed citizens” were veterans.

    • How about the Revolutionary War? It was precipitated by a gun confiscation attempt by an oppressive government?

      Our crazy Founding Fathers saw the utility of armed citizens and enshrined our inherent right to self defense in the 2A.

      How about Vietnam and first Afghanistan where superpowers were ejected by armed civilians?

      Game, set, match. Take your ball and go home, Ubu52.

      • The interesting thing about the history of the 2nd Amendment: even though it was widely seen as redundant, because CLEARLY the Federal government was granted NO power to mess with our guns, it was felt to be such an important right that it needed to be called out explicitly.
        Madison clearly stated that the whole Bill of Rights was redundant, in fact. Then again, he was either rather confused, or rather dishonest — I’m still not sure which. Not just about this, but in his bizarre argument why the power of taxation is limited rather than unlimited (see Federalist 41, in which he speaks total nonsense about semicolons).

Comments are closed.