2/ multiple lies in the opening paragraph.
also contradicts later in the article.
truth: guns are growing in popularity in US; millions of new gun owners in recent years, due to disastrous cultural & cime problems.
3/ >more violent crime
both research and practice shows time and time again that armed society is polite society
>judicial hostility
the constitution of the union. doesn't get any more blatant than that.
>growing movement
astroturfed propaganda. gun ownership shows clear tend.
4/ academic thinking of the law professor:
>let's re-make language to make a constitutional right unavailable
>let's make things nominally legal but effectively infeasible
5/ >research indicates that more research is needed
>activism indicates that more activism is needed
>redistribution indicates that more redistribution is needed
also >federal gov meddling in cities
wow, brilliant thinking, mr constitutional law professor
6/ >gun trafficking is when teenager carries a rifle for self defense
>don't worry the database won't be abused
>just do it lol we'll make it legal
mind you the same faction claims to love 14A's right to privacy so much they somehow found *abortion* in it
7/ a very dangerous point: call for more "red flag" laws.
i.e., an *accusation* of abuse also disenfranchises you from the 2A.
no comment on the disparate gender impact of the 2nd one
8/ >rifle, a proper home defense weapon
vs
>handgun, a weapon for carrying around daily
you know what this is about if you have seen a couple videos of violence in the cities.
the author knows, and winks at the reader.
9/ mr constitutional law professor is unhappy that creating many criminals didn't help anybody
10/ remember he called for redistribution, social workers, and red flag laws and more federal databases.
remember he explained this requires changing *minuscule, obscure* laws - ones that would often escape attention of gun owners. that's his point.
11/ bonus meme: compare and contrast.
for decades we were told by the media & talking heads to stay asleep, to just acquiesce to activists, for they have "good intentions" and are "popular & grass-roots".
here we see stated & astroturfed preference vs the expressed preference.
12/ it takes an academic to be this wrong, this consistently and with that much conviction
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ rise of experts as symptom of breakdown of societal structures.
for subjects too large, or too long running for one person to reasonably observe, we used to have societal structures to hold memory and form opinions.
now that's offloaded onto experts for hire.
2/ we end up nonsense such as certain draconian measures in the pandemic, varying climate change predictions that always point to one and same solution, and topsy-turvy energy sector policy.
and we are told "only experts can form opinions on those".
3/ note that forcing whole society to act, expeditiously and laboriously, on plans that the society is not convinced to, is immoral and evil.
both directly, and also as creating structures & cultural norms for further such evils.
1/ in XVII century then-modern medicine made childbirth a medical procedure, performed at hospital in standardized manner.
this made systematic one of the risks to the mother - death from "puerperal fever", a bacterial infection that thrived in the serially performed procedure.
2/ the form of the procedure & other hospital work, and the risks to the mother were back then broadly accepted by the medical community.
the risk to the mother was very high by today's standards:
3/ a hungarian doctor proposed in 1847 *washing hands* of the practitioners with an early form of antiseptic as practical way of reducing the risks of mortality to below 1%.
this was supported by his subsequent scientific work, and by observation of the results in the hospital.
2/ we were told of dystopian future "corporations will oppress you in myriad ways". we were baited into giving governments extraordinary powers over corporations
every single thing came to pass - and it's the governments & their NGOs doing it. le pikachu shock face. and no neons
1/ in which @MrPrudentialist documents a particularly nasty example of
the progs baiting a new civil war
2/ the title: 100%
the progs won't stop until you follow their ever-changing rules to the T.
a good point about *language manipulation*, and dripping contempt
worth noting how calls for unity by the ruling elite are calls to *obey*.
3/ let's disagree a bit why my esteemed colleague:
>there's been a growing sentiments
>for some kind of national separation
with the blue tribe having a death grip on the comms and on the narrative-making, i surmise the sentiment is being *pumped* rather than grown organically.
1/ consider 4 right-wing powers:
- building a successful organization for your family and your tribe
- getting rich, passing that on
- leading people
- teaching & raising the next generation
those have been deeply undermined through progressive legislation and cultural artifacts
2/ in particular legislation that mandates you have to include blue-tribe people in your organization
- you can't simply pick anybody.
and the blue-tribe members get gov aid in dismantling (suing) your organization according to their own sensibilities (tilted playing field).
3/ you can't amass money for your own family & tribe, the gov redistributes it to *competing* others.