I am including this link because I hope you have had the time to view the short (less than 2 minutes) video at Youtube which is at the link shown below in the previous post.
Mocking the stupidity of something is a good way to show the absolute uselessness of it as a means of actually saving precious lives but even though many of us at this site can hopefully understand that the main goal is to actually PREVENT innocents from being murdered, there still exist too many in this nation who opt for SYMBOLISM OVER SUBSTANCE. Such fools continue to advocate for laws which accomplish nothing except to disarm law-abiding citizens and strip them of the means to defend not only their person, but those around them.
Here is the link containing the headline: As a sideline, more years ago than I care to remember, I actually took a couple of courses at this very location.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/22/Another-Gun-Free-Zone-Another-Shooting-This-Time-In-Texas
Thank you Dan for taking on this non-economic issue as it is so incredibly important in times like these. Thank you for not being afraid to become political in your comments and for allowing political responses from your fans.
ReplyDeleteDan, although it do not always agree with your opinion, i find it good, that people raise their voice and show, that there is another point of view besides the mainstream media brainwashing.
ReplyDeleteThe dictatorship of political "correctness" only could be established, because people are made to believe, to be alone with their opinion, or that their opinion was wrong.
But the more often people realize, that other people share their own opinion, which they didn't dare to raise, the less the impact of the brainwashing becomes.
Recognizing that many other people share the own opinion is the prerequisite, that the silent majority can develop the necessary robustness to recognize again, that not the own opinion was wrong, but the forces that try to avoid free discussions about certain topics are the ones that are lacking arguments!
"If guns shoot, then cars drive."
This sentence makes it clear, that they can only bring their agenda of total control forward, by AVOIDING the factual discussion. Because in an open discussion they could easily be unmasked.
Political "correctness" is all about avoiding factual discussions and instead to demonize the better arguments while not calling it the totalitarian oppression of opinions.
And it works. Political "correct" people do not recognize, that they do NOT respect free speech. They do not recognize, that the only sense free speech has, is that you have to bear the opinion you do NOT want to hear.
Sadly, too many people accept this totalitarian dictatorship silently and do not raise their voice like Dan does. And that's why it has come that far. People are silent and the more silent they are, the more effective this totalitarian marxist methodology works.
People need to learn to be proud, if they are being called politically "incorrect".
Because being politically "correct" means to believe in all the stupid lies the media spread.
Being politically "incorrect" in a time of universal deceit, is a virtue and honor.
End-Zeit;
DeleteThanks for the sound comments. I agree with you that the tactic used by the left is to demonize all opposing viewpoints, no matter that those viewpoints more often than not are rooted in the nation's tradition.
The comments I heard at this past weekend's 2nd amendment rally here was along the lines that you cited. People were sick and tired of feeling like they were in the minority when it comes to their right to not only keep but to bear arms for their defense. The turnout was outstanding and made folks really understand that there are more with us than against us on this issue.
The mainstream media DOES NOT reflect the view of the vast majority of citizens.
Well put sir - thank you.
ReplyDeleteI believe it was Ron Paul who stated, "Truth is treason in an empire of lies."
ReplyDeleteDan I love your market analysis but I have to strongly disagree with this. I live in the UK where it is highly illegal to own weapons including hand guns/knives etc etc. No one in this country feels the need to carry weapons to protect themselves or their families simply because the general public do not have easy access to such items. We do not live in fear.
ReplyDeleteI was lucky enough to meet some the current enlistments from the 101st airbourne during my last visit to Tennessee (of Band of Brothers fame). We had this very discussion. They said:
"Aren't you afraid someone will come in to your house with a gun"
I said no of course not. No 1 we don't live in a society where we expect the worst from others generally to the point where we would worry about a burglar and no 2. if someone did do that it's very unlikely they would have a gun on them.
Sure there is a black market for illegal weapons but the point is it's very difficult for the average Jo on the street to own guns and the harsh punishment act as a deterrent.
My visits to the USA were the first time I ever saw a gun in real life in fact! It's nice to live in a country where citizens aren't living in fear to the point where they feel the need to carry lethal weapons on their person "just in case".
The point here is you have to make it extremely difficult for someone to obtain a weapon. When someone in this country has psychological issues they might attack someone on the street or in a school etc but they don't go on killing sprees simply because they don't have access to weapons that allow them to carry out such terrible deeds.
I've never understood advocates of gun ownership and never will. If you can take the weapons away from a percentage of these lunatics and help prevent another massacre then surely it has to be worth it doesn't it? As the comedian Eddie Izzard once put it:
"Without a gun it's just a fella pointing his arm at someone saying bang!"
Thanks again for taking the time to share your charting/market expertise.
Dominic;
DeleteYou may feel that way but you do not live under a Constitution that recognizes the right of the people to keep and bear arms as we do here in the US.
As a matter of fact, it was the attempt by your general Thomas Gage to disarm the American colonists that launched the actual American Revolution there on the green of Lexington/Concord.
The right to keep and bear arms is a defense against government tyranny. Thomas Jefferson, one of our most admired Founding Fathers said it best:
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny".
It also happens to be the necessary corollary to the God-given unalienable right to life enshrined in our Declaration of INdependence from your King George. I might add that in the original version of the Declaration of Independence, the phrase read:
"unalienable right to life, liberty and property".
It was later edited in favor of the "pursuit of happiness" but it is important to note that the Founders believed a man's property was an extension of his very life and that any infringement upon it by government (or anyone else for that matter) amounted to an attack on an unalienable right. That is another reason for the 2nd amendment.
IN regards to burglaries in England - I am going to assume that you have read the story of the British farmer Tony Martin, who is currently in prison for shooting a burglar who broke into his home while he was in his own home.
http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/12/09/british-justice-shoot-criminals-in-your-own-home-and-go-to-jail-for-murder/
Your nation has, in my mind, a perverse criminal justice system, when a man can be imprisoned for attempting to defend this own property from a damned thief.
No thank you sir - you can keep your state of disarmment there. We will keep our state of being armed here.
In regards to the mentally unstable - that is one area where we are in complete agreement. Neither felons or those whose minds are warped have any business owning a firearm. One of the major issues that needs to be tackled here in the US is better attempts to identify such individuals and to get them off the streets into clinics or institutions where they can receive proper help.
In most of the cases involving mass shootings, the perpetrator was known to be mentally unstable.
I can easily make the case that more people are killed by automobiles driven by those whose minds are "unstable" (temporarily rendered so by alcohol or drugs) so therefore no one should be able to possess or use an automobile because of their destructive power when abused. The gun no more kills than the car does.
The problem is not the tool; it is the one using or in these cases, abusing the tool.
One solution is to VIGOROUSLY ENFORCE the countless hundreds of laws ALREADY on the books against using a firearm in the commission of any crime. Harsh sentencing and swift sentencing, once guilt is established, would send the strongest of messages that society does not tolerate or condone such vile acts of evil. Sadly, some of the most vociferous voices clamoring for disarming the law-abiding are the most soft when it comes to punishing criminals for crime.
And you are welcome for your graciousness in regards to the charting and market comments. I appreciate that!
Dan
Dan thanks so much for such a quick and thoughtful response. I know how busy you are so i appreciate you taking the time out.
ReplyDeleteI do find this whole topic fascinating given the tremendous divide in opinion we have in our respective country's that otherwise share so much.
I hope no offence is taken, these are merely my views and as a UK citizen perhaps I should mind my own business. That said I recently married a beautiful American lady so perhaps I'll have the right to vote in the US sometime in the future!
You say:
"You may feel that way but you do not live under a Constitution that recognizes the right of the people to keep and bear arms as we do here in the US."
The 2nd amendment was written to essentially allow communities to protect themselves through forming militia and "bearing arms":
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
This is understandable given that you guys had just fought of us English and this therefore gave you the right to fight back against any tyrannical regime.
The modern interpretation of this seems to be: "all individuals of sound mind have the right to bear arms". I can't help thinking that this goes completely against the spirit of the original second amendment. Surely it was written to offer citizens protection from tyranny not so that anyone can walk around the streets with a gun just because they have the "constitutional right"
Surely the second amendment is designed for organised militia (like your national guard) to bear arms NOT individuals?
Also the fact we are talking about a second "amendment" implies the constitution can be amended. If it is decided that individuals do have the constitutional right to bear arms then why not amend the constitution again? This is a law that is several hundreds of years old and the founding fathers could not have possibly imagined our modern society and how relevant this may or may not be today.
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny".
Yes buy why is the issue here fear? The governments fear the people in this country becausue of the right to vote and remove them once every four years. Unfortunately, similar to the US, the lack of a reasonable choice of leadership has led to many choosing not to vote. This is my greatest fear; the lack of representation of my Libertarian political views and that the political "elite" are so fearful of voters they choose not to do what is best for the economy but what is more likely to ensure re-election in these unprecedented economic times of unlimited money printing and broken government promises.
Sorry I digress, but I wouldn't have thought us all going out and buying guns would make the politicians behave any differently!
I do remember the Tony Martin case. Couple of points, Martin had his shotgun certificate revoked in 1994 after he found a man scrumping for apples in his orchard and shot a hole in the back of his vehicle!
The burglars were not carrying firearms.
I'm not justifying the burglary of course but Tony Martin shot and killed an unarmed burglar with an unlicensed gun. I'm happy to live in a country where "an eye for an eye" or in this case "a life for a burglary" is not considered lawful behavior.
Dom;
DeleteI would say that you misunderstand the intent of the 2nd amendment. When you say that it was about communities protecting themselves through a militia and bearing arms that begs the question - protect themselves from WHAT? The ratification assemblies in the various states, the writings of the Founding Fathers themselves and even subsequent comments from others near that time period were all in one accord that it was to protect themselves against an OVERREACHING GOVERNMENT which would trample on their unalienable rights.
In the US, the people are the ultimate source of political power. At least that is the way it used to be before the elites in both parties took over. Of course we allowed this but I suspect we are going to see this change as more and more become aware of what is happening to our basic liberties.
I could provide documentation of the Founder's views on this matter but I honestly do not have the time to engage in something that is this lenghty. I would suggest you take some time to acquaint yourself with their writings on this subject. I can assure you that you will be astonished to learn how far from their views the current political speak of today is.
Having said that, the current Supreme Court,of which I am not enamoured, just ruled in 2008 in teh case of District of Columbia vs. Heller that the right to keep and bear arms is an INDIVIDUAL right, and not the collective right of a militia.
It is an easy matter to come to this proper conclusion anyway once you grasp the intent of including the 2nd amendment in the Bill of Rights.
BAsically the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution for that matter, is a list of NEGATIVES. it spells out what GOVERNMENT MAY NOT DO. Sadly, the left in this country has perverted it into some sort of justification for what the CITIZENRY MAY NOT DO on account of what the government forbids them.
On that original basis, the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP and BEAR ARMS MAY NOT BE ABRIDGED.
That is blunt, clear and to the point. It is as clear to the point as the FIRST AMENDMENT. In effect, the 2nd amendment is the guarantee that the first amendment will never be rendered void.
I will leave you with this quotation from the very an ASSOCIATE JUSTICE of the Supreme Court, Joseph Story, who was appointed by none less than the "Father of the Constitution", James Madison:
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium, the safeguard, of liberties of a Republic since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers.
As you can see, it has NOTHING to do with hunting or recreational shooting.
Hi Dan, I have no doubt whatsoever that the founding fathers were trying to protect citizens from an overreaching government in order to protect civil liberties. I am in complete agreement that the US government has become to massive and I think it's a real shame how those liberties you so cherish are being gradually eroded.
DeleteWhat I am not in agreement with is that the solution to this is to arm citizens. Dan I realise the recent ruling does agree with your stance on individual gun ownership. I would like to point out that the ruling was 5-4, hardly a landslide was it? In fact this has only been tested in the courts a few times recently.
Then you have to go back to 1939 ( U.S. v. Miller) when the courts DID NOT side with the right of the individual to bear arms.
My point is that this can and will be argued both ways. It wouldn't be surprising if the courts ruled the other way again some time in the future would it?
End of the day NO-ONE knows for sure how the founding fathers would have wanted this interpreted in today's society. But I put it to you that mass gun ownership and regular shooting sprees and innocent civilians dieing every day is not having the desired effect in your society (protecting civil liberties).
In fact on the one hand you say that gun ownership is vital to prevent an overreaching government, but on your blog you admit to the constant assault on liberties... gun ownership is in no way preventing this is it?
Putting aside how one may choose to interpret the 2nd, let's assume I'm wrong and it DOES give Americans the right to bear arms. Do you ever stop to question whether this right is actually a good thing for your society?
We have many ancient laws in this country that were never rescinded but we choose to ignore them because they are no longer relevant to modern society. Dan really, why do Americans need guns to create change? Surely the power of information and democracy and actually getting out there and being part of the change you want to see in the world is more important that walking around with a shotgun?
I don't understand why intelligent fellas like your good self believe that guns have an important part to play in a modern, enlightened, caring society. From this side of the pond all I see are terrible shootings and innocent lives lost every day and it's a massive price to pay simply to defend a tradition you feel you are entitled to.
Dom;
DeleteI think it important to note that somehow along the thread of this conversation you have come to misunderstand my views somewhere. You seem to suggest that I believe we as Americans need guns in order to create change. I am not sure where you gleaned that but it is certainly not what I believe.
We achieve change here by first of all educating the public about the nature of limited government as envisioned by our Founding Fathers and what place that system of government had in creating the most prosperous, most free, greatest world power that has ever been seen in the entirety of human civilization. That America is a place where people are free to achieve their greatest dreams and mightiest aspirations is a testimony to the genius of these men who gave us our founding documents. This is borne out repeatedly by the millions upon millions of immigrants that left their native homelands to become a part of this great nation.
I submit to you that we as Americans are not essentially different from the rest of humanity in regards to our basic hopes and dreams for a better life for ourselves and our children but what we do have is a system that allows us to achieve these things if we are but willing to work hard, sacrifice and do without for the short term in order that we might achieve for the long term.
This is why it is essential for us to have an educated and informed electorate so that they may peaceably affect change at the ballot box. It is also the scourge of our nation that we have an increasingly dumbed-down electorate who are ignorant of the causes of our liberty and our prosperity and why demagogues such as the current executive are able to utter principles and advance tenets from a failed system of socialism and dupe so many of our fellow citizens into thinking that equality of outcome and not equality of opportunity is somehow an entitlement that demands the power of government to be the great equalizer.
to be continued in the next posted response
The shotgun and the rifle are the last refuge we have against an overeaching government; notice I said the very last. When all else fails, when government transgresses the bounds or chains heaped upon it by the Constitution and then uses its power to crush unalienable rights, then it is that patriots must rise up to defend those rights. I sincerely hope and pray, ( and I do mean that I pray) that it will NEVER Come to that in my lifetime or in the lifetime of my children.
DeleteI would also say that you are far more trusting of men with power than I am or I might add, than the Founders were. I would remind you that more innocent people have been slaughtered by their own governments in the 20TH CENTURY alone than in the entirety of world history. That alone is a sobering fact. In all cases, the citizenry was first disarmed. Again, that is historical fact.
Incidentally, your quoting of the US versus Miller Supreme Court decision of 1939 is actually a double-edge sword. Yes, that court did rule differently than the current court as they took the approach that the right to bear arms was a right not of the individual but of a militia for the common defense and security of the realm. However, and you should not miss the significance of that ruling... the court interpreted the 2nd amendment phrase "arms" as meaning military weapons. Now that opens up another whole issue which time constraints prevent me from going into right now.
Suffice it to say, this liberal Roosevelt packed court obviously missed Justice Story's understanding (again he was appointed by James Madison - the "Father of the Constitution") of the palladium of our liberties.
One thing you are also missing Dom is the number of innocent LIVES SAVED because of the use of law abiding citizens who used their weapons not only in defense of their own lives/property but in the defense of the lives of their fellow citizens.
See the great research done by JOhn Lott on this who is the preminent expert in this area. He is armed with facts and as a common saying over here goes, "One is entitled to thei own opinion, but they are not entitld to their own facts".
Anyway, let's leave it at that since it is pretty obvious that we two shall never be in agreement on this issue. I wish you well.
Peace to you,
Dan
Dan couple of brief points before I leave it.
DeleteUnfortunately there are many Americans who (like in every country the world) abuse the powers given to them. You say want a gun "just in case" and of course I believe you. Unfortunately, a percentage of Americans do not keep them for this reason and they are out there on the street every day, directly resulting in the deaths of many Americans.
In this country these people simply don't have easy access to those kinds of weaapons and we don't have a problem with gun related deaths as a result of this. I can't really see how anyone could disagree with this logic.
As for guns saving lives, well it's a catch 22 situation: if guns weren't on the streets you wouldn't need them to protect yourselves would you?
Dan I'm not trusting in men with power but i don't live in fear of being slaughtered by my own government! We have been disarmed for hundreds of years as have many other countries with no negative consequences other than not having to worry about someone coming into my home with a gun!!
Anyway yes I guess we'll never agree on this. Thanks again for giving me your perspective which has helped me understand the pro gun argument more even if I don't agree with it.
Keep up the great work with the charting. Who would have believed gold could be $1,660 after QE3/4, BoE, BoJ etc etc...
Best wishes to you and your family.
....
ReplyDeletesorry i ran out of space, the rest of my re;ply is below:
I'm very glad we agree on this issue of at least restricting gun ownership to prevent folk with mental health problems owning them.
When you have gun shops on every street corner though, do you really think you'll ever tighten gun control sufficiently to ensure those gun shops follow the letter of the law and ensure that such citizens do not get their hands on guns?
Adam Lanza used his mother's weapon to kill all those poor children. How would your proposed checks prevent people like this getting their hands on guns owned by family or friends? Take the guns away Dan!
Can I just ask you a theoretical question. In the unlikely scenario that the US government somehow managed to change the law and citizens gave up their weapons, do you think there would be more or less gun killings and innocent children killed?
I would put it to you that the US would see far fewer Elementary School shootings and surely this is more important than protecting an ancient constitutional "right" that was never written with today's society in mind?
One other question. Out of all the chartists out there I rate yourself and Franklin Sanders as among the very best. Do you read Mr Sanders daily commentary?
With respect.
Dom
Dominic,
DeleteDo yourself and us a favor and don't come over here.
You are happy and feel safe there and we just live so you can be happy and feel safe - that's all we care about.
So we worry greatly that you might not feel welcome here - that would be just awful!.
We really enjoy your wonderfully brilliant insight.
Thank You So Much!
Dan,
ReplyDeleteHave appreciated your market insights for years.
It amazes me how Americans can be incensed about the rest of the worlds complete bewilderment regarding the American's fixation with guns and general paranoia. Unfortunately a great deal of paranoia comes from a very uneducated portion of your population.
Are Canadian citizens at risk of an "over reaching government" because they cannot have assault rifles/hand guns (easily)? No. That's the tough sell for the rest of the world...and we watch sadly at what happens when a population is saturated with guns. Allowing (college) students to carry concealed weapons on campus smacks of the wild west. I am astounded that such a intelligent person like yourself would follow that line of reasoning.
And "Foam Ranger", I can't believe you wasted your time typing that response.
cdnp77;
DeleteGlad you have enjoyed the market insights. Thanks for acknowleding that.
I have to tell you however that quite frankly, I honestly do not care what the rest of the world thinks about me or those like me who cherish our Constitutional rights. As far as being "Incensed" about it; nothing could be further from the truth. I sincerely do not care what the rest of the world thinks about it so why would I be incensed. To be incensed with them means that I place some sort of value on their opinion - I do not.
Many Americans also have a realistic view of history that informs us that gun confiscation was but the prelude to mass slaughter of innocent civilians by their own government.
Simply put I like George Orwell's philosophy as set forth in "Animal Farm" that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I have a view of the nature of man that is that which informed the Founding Fathers and thus I do not trust men with power, any men whatsoever at any time.
A well armed citizenry is a check to that.
Besides, I still ascribe to Thomas Jefferson's view of government. if that makes me "uneducated" in the minds of the rest of you "enlightened" citizens of the world, then so be it. I am quite content in my ignorance.
Besides, what was so wrong with the wild west? Now if you were a Native American that is a trick question! At least men did not have to obtain a permit to dig a septic tank or hang a shingle outside their place of business. :o)
cdnp77,
DeleteWhen I typed that, I remember thinking "man if this don't hair-lip at least one liberal it will have been a huge waste of time".
DeleteI certainly was not slotting you in the "uneducated" group i was referring to! Rather, I was referring to a what i feel is a significant portion of the "pro-gun" group that hides behind the 2nd simply because they love guns and not because of the intent of the 2nd (as you see it). I belief that the creators of the 2nd would be horrified (and truly saddened) to see what the (unintended) result of it in USA 2013. I belief it would have been drafted differently. But that is just my opinion and I respect your position.
I do not know your position on it but I've seen so much on the news/web about arming teachers. I don't think they would meaningfully reduce the increasing occurrence of school shootings (and they are heartbreaking) but for arguments sake let's say they do. I think the net result would be more gun deaths in schools - whether accidental, or by students in a rage/mental illness getting access to the teachers firearm or by teachers themselves. I'd prefer to have my 2 kids in a school without any guns present.
I'm more inclined to believe that "power" of the people comes through education and enlightenment rather than physical power of guns. The unintended side effect of an armed citizenry is the resulting gun violence. It is only apparent that some should not have guns after they kill somebody. And why any "joe citizen" should require an assault rifle is baffling. Where does that line of reasoning end...in terms of magnitude of the weaponry allowed for the "militia"?
Anyway, apologies for another novel. Hard to swing anyone's beliefs...both mine and yours.
One last crappy response, owning a secluded rural property (with septic), I DO believe in septic permits! They do need to be put in properly! I consider myself to be extremely capable in terms of renovations but i still think it prudent for somebody to check my septic plans if i was to put one in. If not for me, for the next owner!
take care - thanks again for the effort you put in on your site. Been reading for years.