Comments on: The Battles Over Gun Control Are Not Over

By: IEEE 1394B

IEEE 1394B — Sun, 04 Dec 2011 14:49:15 +0000

What a truly good post!!!

By: networking social networking

networking social networking — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 13:40:13 +0000

At least some bloggers can still write. My thanks for this article..

By: jesse Dziedzic

jesse Dziedzic — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 05:47:30 +0000

Particularly well written writing…

By: Margie

Margie — Sun, 07 Aug 2011 04:21:05 +0000

Great atricle, thank you again for writing.

By: Matt

Matt — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 15:52:06 +0000

By the way — I’d just like to point out that “gun control” is in fact a misnomer; it’s more precise to refer to it as “victim disarmament.”

By: dfvzazan

dfvzazan — Sun, 04 Jul 2010 18:18:47 +0000

Ya. I misinterpreted his post. My mistake.

By: cheyenne

cheyenne — Sun, 04 Jul 2010 16:17:22 +0000

I think he thinks people would be better educated about gun safety if there were not strict gun laws.

By: dfvzazan

dfvzazan — Sun, 04 Jul 2010 00:13:41 +0000

Hmmm… I’m ever impressed by your subjectively selective support of individual liberty. When the US constitution supports libertarian ideals you’re impressively gung ho, when it doesn’t you’re adamantly oppossed to said principles, and when the issue is equivocal, you simply pick a side you prefer.

This is the same Prof Miron that said, “[BP is only as responsible as its contract said it should be,]” right?

Why do we apply different standards to contemporary US citizens? The US constitution essentially guarantees the right to “bear arms,” as any literate, non-ACLU lawyer can translate. If a state wants to limit that right, so be it. However, you can no more deny a US citizen the most basic right to own a firearm, as you can deny him the right to speak his mind or practice his religion publically. (I’m certainly no lawyer, so please correct me if need be.)

Likewise, I’m not sure I fully appreciate the “consequentialist” versus “constitutional” arguments. If there’s something I’m missing, please give me a link to connect the dots. Otherwise, I look forward to your defense.

By: Jeffrey Miron

Jeffrey Miron — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 22:52:24 +0000

No crib sheet!

By: Jess Austin

Jess Austin — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 21:54:42 +0000

Way to stay on topic sprite. Or should I say Joe? Conason was who ought to have been embarrassed this morning. I’m not familiar with his work in general (actually I’d never seen “Morning Joe” until you prompted me to google this), but on that pathetic performance he seems to know as much about economics, history, logic, etc. as Jim Kramer. Asking for unemployment numbers from 1873: hilarious! I also loved his “modesty” in declining the host’s suggestion for a scheduled debate with Prof. Miron right at the end.

I almost hope that Miron got a cribsheet of Conason’s peculiarly-specific questions beforehand, because if not, that’s just scary. Every time Conason stopped hollering to draw breath, Miron calmly demolished his most recent inquisition. Gosh, I wonder if we could pick out a bad year since the Fed regime started? We could start with this year!

Nice “H” animus too. That should score plenty of points with the cretins. Unfortunately you won’t find many of those on this site.