Notes From HPS
BY Herschel Smith
10 years, 2 months ago
The group, which has not endorsed Republican challenger Tom Foley at this writing, understands he is a far cry from a perfect candidate on guns. The choice they face is to decide which of their two options available to them — allowing a committed gun-banner to re-secure political power without significant opposition, or sending a message to anti-gun politicians that there is a price for undermining rights by supporting a moderate — is preferable.
This is the question we all face in so many upcoming elections, isn’t it? I’m not a single issue voter, but if I look first to a candidate’s position on guns, I’m generally able to find out in short order whether they are progressive or constitutional. Whatever else one might think, Connecticut is a rough place to be if you believe in the constitution.
John Lott, Gary Kleck, and others are noted researchers, vastly more knowledgeable about statistical analysis than I will ever be, and have sold a great many books trying to provide that proof, or at least compelling evidence–and frankly, I don’t really care.
I don’t care because fundamental human rights–and the right to self-defense must be seen by any rational, ethical person as chief among those–cannot legitimately be held hostage to a requirement for a favorable statistical outcome.
Good for Kurt. Statistical outcomes. It’s the same way the collectivists argue when they tell you facts and figures about how it is more likely that you’ll commit suicide than ever use a gun in self defense. First of all, I doubt those “facts,” and second, I don’t care what the collective does with weapons. I’m not the collective.
From Matt Bracken. All they’ve done is provide me with a target-rich environment. Double tap — double tap — double tap — etc., reload, repeat.
|
|
No comments yet.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Leave a comment