Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for September 9th, 2012

Even though I don’t own that many guns, I’m an unyielding supporter of the 2nd Amendment. Indeed, I use gun control as a quick and simple of way of deciding whether politicians meet minimum standards of acceptability.

I’m not a single-issue voter, though, since politicians have to pass a number of tests (unwavering opposition to tax hikes, support for entitlement reform, etc) before receiving the Dan Mitchell Seal of Approval. I guess this is why 99 percent of them fail.

But I’m digressing. Back to the topic at hand, my support for private gun ownership and constitutional freedoms has motivated me to post several videos in the past few years.

Here’s another video to add to the collection. It’s a bit snarky and not exactly subtle, but I’ve dealt with almost every one of the arguments you’ll hear from the “liberal.” Enjoy.

Oh, and how could almost forget to include a link to my interview on NRA-TV.

This message in my interview is particularly appropriate since I just gave a speech earlier today to the European Resource Bank conference and cited this OECD and BIS data to explain why it is just a matter of time before most nations in Europe descend into Greek-style fiscal crisis and social chaos. When that happens, it’s preferable to be one of the people with guns (unlike the unfortunate Brits when the riots struck the U.K.).

P.S. For those of you who appreciate humor, these gun control posters that have been very popular (here, here, here, here, and here). I’ve also posted amusing images of t-shirts and bumper stickers on gun control (here, here, and here).

P.P.S. If you want something that defends the 2nd Amendment in a simple, but inspirational, fashion, you’ll really like this powerpoint presentation.

Read Full Post »

Thomas Sowell, George Will, and Walter Williams have all explained that the Constitution imposes strict limits on the powers of the federal government. This means, for all intents and purposes, that it is a somewhat anti-democratic document.

And by anti-democratic, I mean the Constitution puts restrictions on democracy (not restrictions on the Democratic Party, though in this case…).

More specifically, it doesn’t matter if a majority of people want Obamacare or a Department of Education. We live in a constitutional republic, a system specifically designed to protect individual liberties from tyranny.

The Founding Fathers obviously didn’t want our freedoms to be subject to the whims of a king, but they also wanted to protect us from the tyranny of the majority.

This is one of the reasons why I’m so happy to share this short video from the folks at the Institute of Humane Studies. The Supreme Court may have wimped out in fulfilling its role of  protecting us against untrammeled majoritarianism, but at least we can understand why it’s a good idea to protect economic liberty.

I particularly like the fact that the video cites the Supreme Court’s horrific Kelo decision.

By the way, if you want to understand the other side of the debate (or if you want to enjoy a good laugh), you can peruse my post on E.J. Dionne’s failure to understand history and constitutional governance.

P.S. I applied the lessons of this video in my post about why the U.S. government should promote liberty rather than democracy in the Middle East.

P.P.S. They probably don’t realize it, but Republicans actually came out against marjoritarianism in their party platform.

P.P.P.S. There is at least one Republican who is against majoritarianism (and for the right reason). Click here for the answer.

Read Full Post »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,476 other followers

%d bloggers like this: