Losing Gun Rights

Americans will lose their gun rights. How and why will gun rights be lost? Conservatives in the United States will lose their gun rights because those are the only rights they show much interest in keeping. There is an active gun lobby. They get results. That is for now. It is unrealistic for Americans to give up other rights with both hands and expect to keep the right to bear arms. Guns have some utility in protecting citizens from harm but not much. Guns are almost never used in self defense. The fact that they are occasionally used in self defense is not enough for non gun people to take their side with any enthusiasm.

The right to bear arms is dependent on maintaining all other rights like free speech and freedom of assembly, the right to sue in civil court, protection fromĀ  search and seizure and so on. Where is the rebellion against civil asset forfeiture? Where is the rebellion against civil asset forfeiture? Police are shooting citizens like flies on a close line. Do the second amendment buffs care? They don’t seem to. Government is being used exclusively as a tool for theft. Who cares? What abusive laws are being targeted for repeal? Wars are being fought for profit. Does murdering people in foreign countries bother the Second Amendment folks? Apparently not a bit. In every area except gun rights conservative activity is limited to virtue signaling.

Suppose you are a gun owner. Isn’t it a little silly to surrender every other right you have with a smile on your face and expect to retain the right to shoot back? We need to be a little realistic. Keeping run rights is only possible if more basic rights are kept in tact but that is not happening.

 

 

This entry was posted in Daily Comments on by .

About Fantasy Free Economics

James Quillian independent scholar,free market economist,and teacher of natural law. Who is James Quillian? Certainly I am nobody special, Just a tireless academic and deep thinker. Besides that, I have broken the code with respect to economics and political science. Credentials? Nothing you would be impressed with. I am not a household name. It is hard to become famous writing that virtually no one in the country is genuinely not in touch with reality. But, if I did not do that, there would be no point in my broking the broken the code. If you read the blog, it is easy to see that there are just a few charts, no math and no quantitative analysis. That is not by accident. Given what I know, those items are completely useless. I do turn out to be highly adept at applying natural law. Natural law has predominance over any principles the social science comes up. By virtue of understanding natural law, I can debunk, in just a few sentences , any theory that calls for intervention by a government. My taking the time to understand the ins and outs of Keynes General Theory is about like expecting a chemistry student to completely grasp all that the alchemists of the middle ages thought they understood in efforts to turn base metals into goal. Keynesian theory clearly calls for complete objectivity. Government can only make political decisions. Keynesian techniques call for economic decisions. So, why go any further with that? Fantasy Free Economics is in a sense a lot like technical analysis. Technical analysis began with the premise that it was impossible to gain enough information studying fundamentals to gain a trading advantage. Study the behavior of investors instead. Unlike technical analysis, I don't use technical charts. What I understand are the incentives of different people and entities active in the economics arena. For example, there is no such thing as an incentive to serve with life in the aggregate. In the aggregate, only self interest applies. It is routinely assumed otherwise. That is highly unappealing. But, I am sorry. That is the way it is. I can accept that because I am genuinely in touch with reality. Step one in using Fantasy Free Economics is for me to understand just how little I really know. A highly credentialed economist may know 100 times what I do based on the standard dogma. Compare the knowledge each of us has compared to all there is to know and we both look like we know nothing at all. There is always more than we don't know than what we do know. I am humble enough to present myself on that basis. Why? That is the way it is. I am not bad at math. I have taught math. What I understand is when to use it and when to rely on something else. Math is useless in natural law so I don't use it. While others look at numbers, I am busy understanding the forces in nature that makes their numbers what they are. That gives me a clear advantage.