An unpublished Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study confirms Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck’s findings of more than two million defensive handgun uses (DGUs) per year.
- After I thought about it, I realized the question of whether reducing guns in a society will lead to fewer murders is a testable hypothesis.
- For Heller, thank the scholarship of Joyce Lee Malcolm
- The Second Amendment was supposed to protect us from the government by dispersing its coercive power among the people. We still adhere to that system today.
- An attorney and former sniper team leader for the U.S. Army explains why 10 of the most common gun control arguments don’t make sense.
Liberalism is largely a process of adopting illogical and factually invalid positions and then artificially placing blame on its opponents when policies based on those positions inevitably fail. For the blame to bear fruit, it is necessary for people of good conscience to be fooled into believing that their actions and beliefs are bad for society and have brought about shameful consequences. At the same time, it is necessary for people whose consciences have already been deformed and co-opted by the faux morality of liberalism to be conditioned to think fellow citizens, who have caused no actual harm but hold contrary views, are evil.
The right is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent.
It is a bit misleading to call our current national discussion about gun control a “debate.” Simply put, politicians and the media directing the discussion aren’t interested in evidence or conclusions contrary to those that they have a vested interest in disseminating. They are interested merely in silencing any opposition, and they rely on their devoted acolytes to continue empowering them to do so.
“The object of this clause is to secure a well-armed militia … But a militia would be useless unless the citizens were enabled to exercise themselves in the use of warlike weapons. To preserve this privilege, and to secure to the people the ability to oppose themselves in military force against the usurpations of government, as well as against enemies from without, that government is forbidden by any law or proceeding to invade or destroy the right to keep and bear arms.”
— John Norton Pomeroy