“In particular, the government may not descend to the evil of preventive law. The government cannot treat men as guilty until they have proven themselves to be, for the moment, innocent. No law can require the individual to prove that he won’t violate another’s rights, in the absence of evidence that he is going to. But this is precisely what gun control laws do. Gun control laws use force against the individual in the absence of any specific evidence that he is about to commit a crime. They say to the rational, responsible gun owner: you may not have or carry a gun because others have used them irrationally or irresponsibly. Thus, preventive law sacrifices the rational and responsible to the irrational and irresponsible. This is unjust and intolerable.” – Harry Binswanger. With Gun Control, Cost Benefit Analysis Is Amoral [via forbes.com]
You often hear the argument, as it was used by Biden, that ‘… if we can save one life, it’s worth it’ … No, it’s not. Just think how many children we could save if we banned swimming pools and bicycles.
Yes, it is worth it. If one AR’s owners life is saved then any bans are not justified….unless an AR owners life is not worth what a bradys or no limit gangbangers is, Randy
Just think of how many lives could be saved if our politicians quit declaring endless wars that have nothing to do with our national defense? How many thousands of children would be alive in the Middle East if the US hadn’t sent drones to blow them up purely for having a different culture?
This is a smart man
What an articulate, reasonable, unarguably rational quote that perfectly frames the spirit of what should be American domestic policy. Of course, all of these traits mean antis will mock or ignore it since it’s the antithesis to what they are: frothing, unreasonable, irrational, evil, and borderline domestic terrorists.
Also notice his picture. Notice the chin held high in confidence rather than contempt, the sharp eye of intelligence. Contrast that with the pictures of the antis we always see around here: the hateful, scowling, contemptuous, aloof portraits of vile beings who disdain anything not under their control.
Just imagine what the left has in mind next if they are successful in disarming the people.
Silver,
Good observations about his facial expressions and body language vs. the gun-grabbers. The Left uses shaming language and character assassinations as part of their tactics to intimidate, put their opponents on the defense, and to silence others.
Separately, a couple months back I wrote a comment observing that the look of the facial features of gun-grabbing-phobic males are frequently weird. They often have a certain look to their faces that is effeminate, metro-sexuall, and like eunuchss.
Best explanation yet, this guy would be good for our cause in front of the SCOTUS.
You know this is the second such story from Forbes. I am beginning to like them!!
Agreed. Forbes has recently published a couple of good and rational pro-2A pieces.
The only thing I would add to your description, Silver, of anti’s would be “The enablers of mass murder”, whether on an individual level like the CT muderer, or on a national level like Stalin or Mao
As for being evil? Personally, I would agree that the people in positions of power know exactly what they are doing, they know it’s not about keeping us safe, it’s about control. That is evil.
As for the people who voted them into power, they mean well, the have good intentions, but the saying is very true, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”.
Just a thought that occured tome while reading Mr. Binswanger’s article at “Forbes”:
Preemptive laws( like gun control laws)are passed not only because a segment of the population fears guns and their owners,but they fear having to deal with the fact of going armed. Do they instinctively,if not intellectually, realize that in a freely armed society they too, will have to bear the hassles that gun owners accept every day?
When they think about training, selecting a carry method,securing the gun from unauthorized hands, maintenance, constant awareness, continuing education,and all the various things and time these responsibilities include,are the simply daunted and say”I REFUSE to live my life that way!”?
Then, based on their refusal to adopt the armed lifestyle, do they then decide that if they choose not to live that way, then wouldn’t life be easier if the government relieved all of us the burden of having to live that way?
The next step(to relieve them of their fear of others who go armed and their disdain of the resposibilities of the armed lifestyle) they must pass laws keeping others from practicing the armred lifestyle.
Just a thought. What do ya’ll think ?
Good thoughts, I’m thinking it’s the whole idea of being responsible for ones life; a mature responsible adult provides thier own food, shelter, warmth and self-defense as well as the defense of ones community; the anti’s, who are generally liberal/progressive, are all about being taken care by the nanny state, they fear the responsibilities required of a free man or woman.
ThomasR, thanks,but I think you said what I tried to say,and you said it better and faster.
Is it me or are people starting to wake up and smell the gunpowder!? Even going to the petitions page for the White House there is much more pro-2A than gun control petitions.
When a Government holds the People it is contracted to Govern (by their Consent) no longer rational and trustworthy to Keep and Bear (NOT BARE) Arms, that Government has embarked on a path of Tyranny. It will systematically infringe and revoke the Natural Rights of the People, finally revoking their Right of Consent and imposing its will on the People in all things. Thus rendering the People nothing more than the property of the Government aka slaves. This is the polar opposite of the American Republic, which (from the outset) has rightly derived its power to Govern from the voluntary Consent of its Free People.
Each day the cultural divides in America grow deeper and wider. True American Statesman have warned, over the centuries, that the greatest threat to America is if our country divides into multiple warring nationalities. The sheeple have voted wolves into positions of power. These are indeed the dark days of winter.
I do wish the writer had tried to make his points without relying so visibly on Ayn Rand’s writings, which are polarizing to say the least. There are many folks who will read as far as the Ayn Rand references and then immediately disregard the article based solely on those quotes.
Your assuming many folks know the quotes and references of Ayn Rand. But if the folks are turning away from the article because of these quotes, then I submit they probably would’ve disregarded the article anyway.
Also polarization started with the first Anti that entered an unconstitutional bill into congress.
Good post.
Banning X is asking the state to do violence on your behalf. Eventually, possessing X will result in an armed man taking it from you. The smug hypocrisy of pacifists wanting to forcibly disarm people is hysterical.
Banning This also leaves u at the mercy and will of those who illegally possess not only This but That too!!
Which in the end leaves us defenseless not only in our homes but in public also. Our kids, our wives, husbands, girlfriends, our elderly or disabled parents and grandparents, grandkids are all defenseless.
Since the SCOTUS ruled that a Law Enforcement Officer is not obligated by law to protect any individual citizen then it falls on us individual citizens to protect and provide for our own and those not able to do either.
Judging us guilty or unfit to own the legal weapon of our choice, thus allowing ourselves to live by our own means and not off of the Nanny State Federal Government, is not only biased and discriminatory but just plain stupid.
An AWB will only accomplish two things: One it will propogate an promote more Federal Debt due to the increased costs of “Caring for” the unarmed and defenseless welfare citizens and Two it will turn most larger cities and municipalities into even bigger free fire victim rich environments.
I know the amount of jobs lost due to the banning of many semi auto weapons and the subsequent shutting down of the factories will be a large number but that would fall under number One because of the amount of Extended Unemployment/Welfare Benefits those individuals and families will require to barely survive and feed their families, in turn leading to more economic collapse and fall out.
I hope and pray everyday that no changes are made to Federal Firearms Laws in regards to banning, restricting or registration but we will have to wait and see.
Like the old saying goes” Hope For The Best and Expect The Worst!!!
Now where the hell did I leave my tin hat??
Law abiding citizens should be allowed to have nuclear weapons, because bad guys can manufacture dirty bombs, and we don’t want the the bad guys to be the only ones with nuclear weapons. We need more good guys with equal weapons. The second Amendment covers military grade weapons, because we don’t want the military to have more powerful weapons- that will surely end in our democracy becoming Facist or Communist, or something really terrible!
Are we in 1st grade? The tired and illogical argument of all gun owners wanting nukes is past pathetic. I’ll bet you thought you were being originol and had hit on an argument that would carry the day. If that’s the best you got, well I think pathetic just about covers it, WC.