|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
The Bogus Claims Of The NRA's Favorite Social Scientist, Debunked
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://keepandbeararms.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The War Against Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies by John Lott is well on its way to ascending into the pantheon of pro-gun literature. A parade of conservative heavyweights has lavished praise on the book since its publication this month, among them Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Newt Gingrich, Grover Norquist, Ann Coulter, and Sean Hannity. Cruz opined that "the Second Amendment has no better defender than John Lott," adding that with this book, Lott "has done his country and the cause of gun rights a great service." |
| Comment by:
teebonicus
(8/31/2016)
|
Sour grapes.
These cretins attacking John Lott is like throwing spitballs at a battleship. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(8/31/2016)
|
The articles tries to debunk Dr. Lott's studies ....but includes David Hemenways' studies ....??? Hasn't HIS work been DEBUNKED too?
And no mention of University of Florida's Gary Kleck's work which also tended to reinforce what Dr. Lott found.
I call fowl on this article. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
