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.
- Ted Nugent talking about gun ownership and the right of self defense.
- A look at the Switzerland’s strong gun culture and the importance of self defense as a protection against oppression.
- And some very powerful testimony to some weasels on Capitol Hill (make sure to pay attention around the 5:00 mark).
- Ice-T talking about the real reason to defend and support the 2nd Amendment.
- A heartwarming Christmas story.
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.
International Liberty 
[…] An amusing cartoon conversation between an anti-gun ideologue and a supporter of the Constitution. […]
[…] An amusing cartoon conversation between an anti-gun ideologue and a supporter of the Constitution. […]
[…] An amusing cartoon conversation between an anti-gun ideologue and a supporter of the Constitution. […]
[…] An amusing cartoon conversation between an anti-gun ideologue and a supporter of the Constitution. […]
[…] An amusing cartoon conversation between an anti-gun ideologue and a supporter of the Constitution. […]
[…] An amusing cartoon conversation between an anti-gun ideologue and a supporter of the Constitution. […]
[…] An amusing cartoon conversation between an anti-gun ideologue and a supporter of the Constitution. […]
[…] An amusing cartoon conversation between an anti-gun ideologue and a supporter of the Constitution. […]
[…] An amusing cartoon conversation between an anti-gun ideologue and a supporter of the Constitution. […]
[…] It’s not as good as this classic video mocking gun-free zones, but still worth watching. And you can see other humorous gun control videos here, here, and here. […]
[…] An amusing cartoon conversation between an anti-gun ideologue and a supporter of the Constitution. […]
[…] An amusing cartoon conversation between an anti-gun ideologue and a supporter of the Constitution. […]
[…] amusing cartoon conversation between an anti-gun ideologue and a supporter of the […]
[…] An amusing cartoon conversation between an anti-gun ideologue and a supporter of the Constitution. […]
[…] An amusing cartoon conversation between an anti-gun ideologue and a supporter of the Constitution. […]
[…] amusing cartoon conversation between an anti-gun ideologue and a supporter of the […]
[…] https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/09/09/deciphering-how-statists-think-about-gun-control/ […]
[…] An amusing cartoon conversation between an anti-gun ideologue and a supporter of the Constitution. […]
[…] An amusing cartoon conversation between an anti-gun ideologue and a supporter of the Constitution. […]
[…] An amusing cartoon conversation between an anti-gun ideologue and a supporter of the Constitution. […]
[…] An amusing cartoon conversation between an anti-gun ideologue and a supporter of the Constitution. […]
[…] Deciphering How Statists Think about Gun Control […]
[…] An amusing cartoon conversation between an anti-gun ideologue and a supporter of the Constitution. […]
[…] amusing cartoon conversation between an anti-gun ideologue and a supporter of the […]
[…] amusing cartoon conversation between an anti-gun ideologue and a supporter of the […]
[…] Deciphering How Statists Think about Gun Control […]
Douglas said, “…one still has to acknowledge that they are two different types of rights.”
Ahhh, no, one doesn’t.
Gay ‘anything’ is not a right. Keeping and carrying guns is a right. Read the Constitution please. Further, abortion is not a right. Womans rights are not rights. These are ‘wants’ not rights. As in “I want free birth control”.
Further, “Guns can kill.” Yupp, they can! So can I using only my bare hands. I can also kill using a bow & arrow, knife, rope, rock, stick or water. So What?
There is a more practical reason to the second amendment and individual freedom: Productivity.
The more a society restricts what you can do with the reward for your labor, the less motivated people become to work and produce, as the value of their reward is diluted by the restrictions. How much enthousiasm would you have to work and be the first worldwide to create exceptional things (and other “jobs”) if everything fun you can do with the earned money has been banned or made very expensive because it enlarges your carbon footprint?
So, yes, all freedoms have certain costs. Of the thirty something thousand traffic deaths that occur every year, how many were due to miles driven as part of a non-essential trip? Let’s just say twenty percent to be very conservative. So imagine, six plus thousand deaths a year so that people can engage in non-essential recreational activities, take grandma to Yosemite, go to Starbucks and get loaded on caffeine while designing the new restrictions on nicotine, go disturb birds hiking around with binoculars, and a myriad other non-essential activities killing over six thousand people per year — a large proportion of whom were minding their own business until being hit by the party at fault. So let’s just be “reasonable” and try to clamp down on the number of miles people drive for non-essential reasons! Through bans, permit processes, quotas etc. (yes, I know some people would actually be happy with that).
So the second amendment has a cost (increased gun violence, though not necessarily to the extent some people think as Switzerland demonstrates etc.), confers some benefits (protection, second thoughts before breaking into someone else’s house to do harm, perhaps a backstop to tyranny etc.) , but perhaps its most beneficial dispersed effect is that it upholds individual freedom. And a free people are a productive people and thus a prosperous people. There are thus systemic benefits even if you don’t plan to make use of the second amendment personally. Of course, if you instinctively hate the idea of people owning guns (perhaps because they tend to be republicans who banned your marriage –yes, revenge regulation, another propellant to serfdom, but that’s another story), see no use in owning a gun yourself and place little utilitarian or ideological value to freedoms that are of no use to you personally, then you will most likely oppose the second amendment.
But I want to repeat, a free people are a productive people and thus a prosperous people. People who have never lived in high levels of individual freedom and have not experienced the dynamism that it creates — a dynamism that enables the internationally renowned average American simpleton to outproduce his/her more competent European brethren – cannot imagine that there may be a better environment, if individual freedom is allowed to unlock its dynamism. That is the core of what Europeans do not understand about America, — and what useful idiots (the current American majority) that do not appreciate, and will thus systemically lose their unique prosperity standing in short order. Of course, with America now on an irreversible path to Europeanization and decline, the distinction becomes largely inconsequential.
In short, the utilitarian argument (really, all that cultural evolution cares for in determining a people’s fate) is that an unfree society, a society with high levels of mandatory collectivism is a less productive society. And a less productive society is on a constant and relentless trendline to marginalization and decline — It is only a matter of time. A society that does not let you own guns, for all piratical purposes forces you to live in an apartment, actively discourages the freedoms of individual transportation, takes half the money that you make, bans or curtails anything that has to do with your evil carbon footprint, makes you pay an additional extra twenty percent for every item you buy, makes you give up half your wealth when you die, etc. is a society where people’s desire to work wanes fast, and is thus a society destined to be outperformed and overtaken by freer and thus more motivated people.
The loss of American uniqueness is accelerating, and thus convergence to average worldwide prosperity levels is inevitable. That will be a very different world from what you are used to now dear Americans — being born and having grown up and lived in a de facto supreme American prosperity. I have lived in the European paradise you aspire to become (yes the western part) and I can tell you, the prosperity levels that you take for granted in America, are much harder to achieve in that world, in addition to requiring a lot more individual competence than you currently. Yes, sure you could achieve French competence with French redistributive policies. But what is the end result of such transition? You would be a French or other western European like society, on a perpetual one to two percent growth trendline – in a world that grows by five percent annual – thus losing three percent of your relative prosperity per year – a deterministic premeditated path to decline. That is where you are irreversibly headed…
i agree mostly with the analysis of taking away rights is always wrong. (gay marriage same as right to bear arms) The only I would add however is that Gay marriage can’t kill people and guns can. The simple fact that guns can kill people doesn’t in my opinion make a case for weapon bans however, one still has to acknowledge that they are two different types of rights.
What Is Obama’s Gun Control Agenda http://www.justfactsdaily.com/what-is-obamas-gun-control-agenda
“I just want you to know that we are working on it,” Brady recalled the president telling them. “We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”