[High Praise! to Scott Adams’ Blog]
[Think you have a link that’s IMAO-worthy? Send it to harvolson@gmail.com. If I use your link, you will receive High Praise! (assuming you remember to put your name in the email)]
[High Praise! to Scott Adams’ Blog]
[Think you have a link that’s IMAO-worthy? Send it to harvolson@gmail.com. If I use your link, you will receive High Praise! (assuming you remember to put your name in the email)]
The core of his argument actually looked like no matter what side you’re on, the result will be people dying, and the best solution for you is the one that doesn’t result in you dying. Which you’re going to do anyway.
Yeah, I have enjoyed Scott’s blog almost as long as IMAO.us, but his argument here is weak. It shows that he has not thought seriously about gun rights much over the years. I’m just gonna say it. His “Honest Pro/Anti-gun” arguments (about 3/4 of the way down) are complete crap. They assume all opinions are based on whether someone personally thinks they are safer with more or less guns… a small-minded perspective. Frankly, those opinions don’t matter. This is the Bill of Rights we are talking about here. It requires deep reflection and research, about the natural right/duty and morality of man to defend himself and the innocent from unjust violence. Our Bill of Rights is not about anything as shallow as opinions and self-interest. It’s about freedom. It’s about promoting good, and preventing evil. Powerful stuff. We should discourage the children from messing with it.
The Constitution can be changed and until you do so in a manner provided by it arguing about “finessing” a fundamental change to it is contrary to why it was written and created in the first place and renders any “discussion” moot. There may be hundreds of valid reasons why guns should be eliminated in society but until you change the document which is supposed to guarantee their existence in the hands of law abiding citizens they mean nothing in the debate. If the second could be eliminated that way then ANY part of the Constitution can be eliminated that way and opens the path to totalitarianism and rule by passing emotional outbursts and fad and not law.
Man, that headline cries out for parentheses; viz., “I’m OK With (Innocent People Dying), Because the Alternative Is NOT (Innocent People Not Dying).” When you cancel out the NOTs it says, “I’m OK With (Innocent People Dying), Because the Alternative Is (Innocent People Dying)”. That turns out to be what Scott Adams said in his column.
I phrased that one very deliberately. Gun controllers always try to imply that if you give them their way, innocent people won’t die. Which isn’t even remotely true.
All people die, not all people truly live.