Sunday Morning Notes

[Grampaw Willie, SASS No.26996]

In he National Review this morning I found myself browsing through

Trump’s NRA Speech: A Response to the Fact-Checkers

 

it's an interesting read

 

but not very helpful: the way the media operates is simple:   they throw their propaganda on the front page in loud bold letters:

 

!!!!! PROPAGANDA !!!!!

 

later, when their b.s. is exposed for what it is they offer their retraction/correction

on the back page in the fine print

 

what does the casual audience remember/take-away ?    Generally, the original impression: the propaganda.

 

Propaganda is quickly rejected ,-- by people who already know better, who can call "B.S." when the crap is thrown

 

Amendment 1

 

I have a copy of John Lotts book More Guns Less Crime.  

 

I took it down from the shelf this morning for a new look.  The interesting question comes down to the old Cart before the Horse question.  Does an area with a high crime rate need more gun control -- or more CPLs ?     Someplace I have a summary on the origin of New York's famous "Sullivan Law".  As I recall that's quite relevant to the discussion.   The relevant question in that matter being: just exactly who was the Sullivan Law enacted to protect?

 

 

[Subdeacon Joe]

Thanks.,  Article shared to my FB page.

[Grampaw Willie, SASS No.26996]

3 hours ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

Thanks.,  Article shared to my FB page.

 

you might get booted for that,....

[Grampaw Willie, SASS No.26996]

Quote

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither
inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for
the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage
than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater
confidence than an armed one"
Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, criminologist, 1764

 

I took a little time and reviewed John Lott's  More Guns Less Crime      ( c. 1998 )

 

John presents an impressive analysis of formal crime statistics and in particularly showing the change in the statistics after the passage of "shall issue CPL law".  The results shown are what you'd expect.   This tends to defeat the notion that "the higher the crime rate the more strict gun laws are needed".  The opposite, --is indicated.

 

John has a newer piece available:   The War on Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies Hardcover – August 1, 2016

 

Personally though, I recommend reading The Life and Work of David Horowitz published in The National Review.  

 

David Horowitz was a liberal who converted to the conservative cause after much study and reflection.   There's this in the essay:

Quote

He became increasingly convinced, as Peter Collier had tried to persuade him, that “the element of malice played a larger role in the motives of the left than I had been willing to accept.” If the Left really wanted a better world, why was it so indifferent to the terrible consequences of its own ideas and practices?

 

Perhaps a few more good folks will give this a bit of thought and then carefully consider the consequences of that which they advocate and push for.

[Subdeacon Joe]

1 hour ago, Grampaw Willie, SASS No.26996 said:

 

you might get booted for that,....

 

 

Haven't yet.  and I get somewhat brutal on the pages of my Congressman and Senators.  I'll post links to stories of successful DGUs and accuse those o, so honorable worthies of preferring that the woman be raped and murdered rather than have an effective means of self defense.