New Blog Tests Factual Foundations of Opposition to Gun Control

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hm. For a retired professor of criminology, who claims to be testing the factual underpinnings of the pro-2A arguments, he seems remarkably uninterested in citing to any sort of authority. (Read: I couldn't find a single in the whole blog.) For example, in "More Guns, Less Crime," the author claims that "[a] National Rifle Association document issued in 2010, ironically, provides data to undermine its champion scientist’s claim[,]" but makes no mention of what that document is, or where it can be found. If I were an anti, I'd be dying to know where to find that document. If you're going to go about the business of debunking the pro-2A arguments, shouldn't you cite some studies, some Federalist papers, something?

This blogger also claims to be the author of a "documentary novel." Isn't that an oxymoron?
 
Why is it when Gun Control advocates argue against our RKBA, they attempt to enforce the ideal that it was only penned to secure armed militias or a standing army BUT all other Amendments are recognized as individual's rights?
 
Lacking specific evidence of a legislative intent to endow the Second Amendment with the right of the individual to keep arms for self defense, nearly all of [Supreme Court Justice Scaila] sixty- four page opinion mixes linguistic analysis with circumstantial evidence, from which he finds it “clear” that bearing arms is an individual right.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't even bother debating this guy.
 
I wouldn't ordinarily bother debating him, and don't plan on it, but I think it bears taking a look at his blog. He's the kind of anti that's credible enough, and well-spoken enough to actually be dangerous. GoTimothy, referenced in another thead, is an obvious loon. This guy's not obvious.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top