Today I’m going to cover another article about gun control. This time I won’t rehash statistics that I’ve covered before, because that’s not how I’m approaching the argument this time. So who am I tearing apart this time? One Lizz Schumer for a rag called Cheat Sheet. This time I’m not only linking the archive but the original site link. I’m doing this because after posting the article the first time, it was rewritten because of this line that has been mocked mercilessly, and for good reason!
That is quite the hot take, I’m sure you would agree, so I’m going to take the original article (which was, fortunately, archived already) and compare it to the revised version… then go over how they STILL get it wrong. There is already a reddit post dedicated to this article which debunks the article as a whole, and I may use some of their talking points, but overall I do believe that some of the best explanations of why the Second Amendment needs to be protected, full stop, is the interview Steven Crowder did of the hero of the Sutherland Springs Shooting Stephen Willeford. Say what you will about Crowder’s methods of data collection but as a whole, he has shown more transparency over his methods than the Legacy Media. This I also think is a necessary watch, as it shows not only the innate compassion of men but how easily we are used and disposed of by current society. With that in mind, Let’s Hammer This In!
So who is the author of this piece of garbage, Lizz Schumer? One might simply think of her name and think of supposed comedian Amy Schumer, or her senator cousin Chuck, both of whom heavily promote feminist talking points left and right. Well, based on what I could find out she doesn’t link herself to the more famous of the Schumer clan, but her typically feminist-themed talking points, and fact that she is from Buffalo N.Y., make it reasonable to guess she may be a relative, if nothing else. I at least give her credit for not trying to use name recognition and perceived nepotism to push her career forward. This does not, however, immunize her from my criticism nor should it. This merely gives us a basis of where her mindset might have been derived, which will be important as we go over her work.
Further, looking at her author profile on Cheat Sheet, we see that she drops multiple articles within a day. Most outlets I have read with any sense of respectability will have an author usually work on an article a day, maybe two. This is because of a need to research the material involved. I take a week to go over my articles and that includes working with Hannah in real time when she proofreads and edits the piece to ensure that everything fits within my writing style and that all of my sources pan out. For confirmation, I do also research more sources than I post, but use only post one source per point to keep repetitive linking down. I am going over these different styles to put forward something very important that a lot of people forget when it comes to content: The importance of quality over quantity. I go for the best quality writing possible from me. Schumer here goes for the highest quantity. The issue is, they don’t denote which of her articles are rewrites. This causes issues with reliability of the content. Moving on.
For ease of comparison, the archived version will be the margin on the left of the up-to-date article, which is blown up. This goes into how the individual states (in this example Nevada) approach gun laws and show that it has the 14th highest gun death rate in the country. Never mind that the highest gun death rates actually come from more regulated states like California and Illinois, and less gun death rates occur in more relaxed states such as Mississippi and my home state of Kentucky. But on top of that Ms. Schumer here neglects to mention a very simple fact. We have Federal level firearm laws that are enforced by the ATF. This is the same, in fact, to how the DEA could (if they wanted) enforce the federal standard on weed in Oregon, Colorado, or any other state that legalized marijuana. The only reason they don’t do so is it wouldn’t be a cost effective endeavor so they just keep an eye on the borders of those states for people trying to bring the product out of those legal states into ones that still honor the federal laws on the issue. She would like to see the individual states cracking down more on guns rather than the states letting it be a federal matter of enforcement. It is well within each state’s rights to allow federal jurisdiction on such matters.
Now for the impetus of this article, Granted, so far, very little has been changed between the two forms. However, this alone does show her original intent for this article: to imply that no strict authoritarian law should have exceptions, and that people as individuals should give way purely to the collective. She then implies that regulations making it harder to obtain ingredients for bomb-making have made us safer. This is not true, nor is it true that terrorists have switched exclusively to guns in this country. New York’s Islamic Truck of Peace proves that one. However, when it comes to bombs, I can tell you right now if I wanted how I could go down to ACE hardware and get all the supplies I need to either create an explosive or make a homebrew metalsmith’s forge. A little hint here – the ingredients don’t differ that much, just the levels. I won’t do so though, because I don’t want to worry the cop on my street. He gets enough shit as it is.
Anyway, the rewrite makes one think that she is trying to just argue with anarcho-capitalists when in fact she is trying to tear down moderate libertarians and right wing people under the auspices of calling everyone who isn’t her type of authoritarian ‘far-right.’ You know, like we dealt with last week!
This next part goes back to the virtue signaling around the Orlando Shooting by Omar Marteen. She then proceeds to show her lack of comprehension on what laws actually do. Laws are rules, guidelines – they describe actions that either should or should not be performed by any one individual. The approach that we SHOULD be taking with laws in this country are the approaches that defend the rights of individuals from being infringed upon. It’s obvious with the wording Schumer uses here, namely “Restrictions on magazine size, automatic or semi-automatic weapons” that not only does she not know the 1986 law on automatic guns which makes them already illegal, but that she wants to infringe upon people’s property rights and the rights of manufacturers to create tools. In the end, there is no difference between a weapon and a tool except for the user’s intent. Besides, if the AR-15 her clan wishes to make illegal was made illegal and the NRA they want disbanded broken up, it wouldn’t have stopped then Stephen Willeford would not have been able to stop the killing in the Texas Massacre the way he did, and more lives would have been lost… but if existing protocol had been followed, the massacre never would have been prevented three times over. So no, laws alone DON’T prevent mass shootings.
As Mr. Paul Elam recently said on Twitter…
But I understand why she doesn’t understand that. This next one makes that clear.
Alright, now that’s just silly to open up this one with. That’s what “Guns don’t kill people” means. Guns can’t hold themselves or pull their own triggers. In addition, I have to ask – do you WANT a high number of justifiable homicides? Also considering the current state of Harvard and many other major universities you can forgive me for being skeptical of these studies cited. Do these studies differentiate between homicides using legal and illegal firearms? Something tells me they don’t. Not in the slightest… and if that’s the case they are citing homicides using illegally possessed guns as evidence that legal possession causes homicide.
Pro tip Lizz, you WANT there to be a lower justifieable homicide rate than the criminal if there is any of either. It shows that you have an overall decent set of morals that does frown upon robbing others of their most precious gift – life, and therefore homicide is only considered justifiable under very limited circumstances. But like most Marxist types I gather you don’t much value that gift.
Now there is a kernel of truth to everything I go against. Here I will state this – a gun alone isn’t enough for self-defense. Knowledge and skill matter. As stated before, Willeford was, and as far as I know still is, a certified NRA instructor. This is why I wouldn’t be opposed to a regulation such as having to take a proper shooting and cleaning class for a firearm before owning it. We have similar classes for cars, which anti-gun advocates try to say are harder to obtain than a gun is. They’re right only insofar as it’s more cost prohibitive. I should know. I’ve had to buy enough cars. However, it is still vital that one knows how to maintain any utility they need to use. I know how to change the oil and do basic maintenance to my family van, my father-in-law’s truck and even a little of my mother in law’s much newer car. I would expect to have to know how to replace parts in my Walther P38 or my Colt 1911. Not that I own those specific guns, but I do know their mechanics. Also if you are going to Chicago, please wear a better bulletproof vest than the idiot who shot up that church. (Sorry for the jab Brian, but you know how things are there even better than I do.)
(see above linked Crowder interview.)
Going back to Nevada this shows the author’s ignorance of each state’s specific laws… bamely, when it comes to concerts and large gatherings, particularly in the city of Las Vegas. The rulings of that concert fell under the same as casinos. As a semi-public area such as a park, a venue can establish their own rules against the carrying of a firearm and considering it was supposed to be a peaceful music concert (regardless of your feelings about country music) no one was intending a shootout, so no one had a firearm. Therefore, especially since there were children in attendance, it was a ‘gun free zone.’ The same is true with the church because “Who carries a weapon into a house of God like that?” We can debate on past examples later. I’m simply demonstrating the mindset of the people involved in these tragedies. They were in a place of peace and tranquility to enjoy something with like-minded individuals. They weren’t there expecting a psychopath to start killing innocents in high numbers. Stop being a cunt!
This is splitting hairs. Sure, she makes a point of ‘relaxing gun laws’ with the 1938 Nazi Weapon Law in terms of age reduction from 20 to 18. Then, she immediately tries to sweep under the rug the fact that he took firearm rights from Jewish citizens and flat-out ignores the removal of rights from Romani folk commonly known as gypsies. Didn’t think I’d know about you trying to hide that fact, eh Herr Schumer? Veeh would have a field day with this to be sure. Point is, she is trying to twist a selective, incomplete presentation of facts to make it ironically sound like “Hitler dindu nuffin – he a good boy!” Wait a second, weren’t we supposed to be the pro-Hitler people? Be careful feminazi – your true colors are showing. “Sieg Heilary” am I right?
Now she is just being intellectually dishonest and shifting meanings. It says very plainly even in her writing of the Second Amendment “A well-regulated militia” meaning the MILITARY is what needs to be regulated. This means strict physical guidelines, uniforms, and consistency of training, and that is necessary to the security of a free state as peace and freedom are only maintained with unyielding vigilance, including civilian preparedness. Therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED! It does not constitute a statement that the right of people to keep and bear arms shall be regulated. It means it shall not. This means for any reason. Granted I wouldn’t like the idea of one of my redneck neighbors shooting off missiles right next door and can comprehend the regulation of heavy ordinances such as weapons of mass destruction, but I am in favor of people getting their preferred personal arms. If someone wants to carry a custom AR-15 or a lovingly cared for waifu like this…
I think I can live with that.
Here, we have an insane level of ignorance and idiocy. Granted, we are hearing this from someone who likely has a vested interest in the clinically insane running the asylum. She links to a study with so much jargon its hard for anyone that isn’t a psych major to comprehend what they are dealing with. She also shows with her approach that slight improvements aren’t desirable. Only ‘perfection’ is desirable. For those of you at all familiar with my approach on things I don’t believe in perfection, or absolutist utopian societies, or absolutes in general. This is due to the nature of perception being a your mileage may vary aspect of reality. It’s one of the core reasons we have conflict in the world in the first place. Taken to its conclusion, there is only one way for a completely peaceful state to occur on this planet – life ends. Every animal, every plant, every microbe dies. The core of the planet runs cold and hard and we become more barren than Mars.
In any case the way this is presented it makes one think they just want to de-stigmatize mental health in the wrong way. They wish to make it more like “Its ok if you are batshit insane lady. But we still want to demonize men and keep their mental health shit while robbing their rights, therefore making their mental health even worse!” When we should be equally working towards enhancing our abilities of diagnosing these issues in everyone and coming up with balanced treatments of these dire conditions. She also glosses RIGHT over the concept proposed by many who promote mental health requirements for firearms that treatment should be encouraged if the person fails this requirement so that down the line they may try again once they are better. She also ignores that there are already laws impacting the ability of people under certain types of treatment to purchase guns.
Society should also hopefully try to work down costs for mental care. This next part is unrelated. However, I think its at least a little relevant to some of the current discussions. In healthcare, the biggest issue to the public is the exorbitant costs rather than the quality. Next to student loans, all forms of healthcare are the biggest debt issue in our economy, and knowing what a racket the post-secondary education system has become, that’s saying a lot. In fact, you could say it’s one of the biggest rackets in history, especially considering how little the degrees in this day and age are worth in the job market (other than producing a professional prie- I meant ‘activist’ class… but overall what I find most interesting is that she thinks she is the debunker here. I think we can all agree that I have thoroughly debunked her debunk while having an urge to mock Chuck. Alright, I’m sorry about that shit rhyming attempt.
Regardless, I hope that we can finally put this stupid argument about the meaning of the Second Amendment to bed. Ugh I think I need a palette cleanser. However I think I’ll leave my next article as a surprise. Now excuse me while I finish preparing things for Friday for a date with my wife. Gods knows we need it! Until next time Please Remember to Game Freely!
- Breaking the Narrative Episode 124: Nice Try Kotaku! This Won’t Work Though! - July 8, 2019
- Breaking the Narrative Episode 123: We Shouldn’t Go Straight to Mars! How Anime Got Space Right! - July 1, 2019
- Breaking the Narrative Episode 122: You’re Reviewing What Now? The Dissenter Web Browser! - June 10, 2019
8. Most actual gun owners don’t cite the Nazi law to “prove” people want to confiscate guns. They just point to the many times modern politicians have tried to hard- or soft-ban guns, and/or explicit statements that they want to ban guns. In fact, there’s a subreddit of this stuff.
9. And, of course, she’s focusing on the “militia” part of the 2A while ignoring how the right is specifically granted to the people. It doesn’t say they have to use that right to form a militia.
10. I like how these folks like citing the small amount of mass shootings to argue for gun control, but suddenly “only” 5% of overall gun crime being linked to mental illness means it’s basically irrelevant. And again with the strawman; mass shooters, specifically, consistently have indications of some sort of mental illness, according to gun defenders. Also, I like how “pending charges” and DUIs are enough to remove someone’s guns. I wonder what other constitutional rights should be removed without a conviction? This is exactly the sort of “safety” measures gun owners complain about.
And then she goes right back to mass shootings. While, like they always do, not admitting that the TX shooter fell through a crack in the system. He got his guns because gun control failed.
I actually agree with you on number 8, I was approaching it from the idea that even if that was a citation used that her interpretation of that citation is beyond flawed. It also shows an ironically anti-Semitic view from someone who lives in Buffalo. New York as a state has had an iconic connection with those of Jewish ancestry. In fact I think there is an orthodox Jewish community near where she is writing from last I checked.
As for 9 as you could tell she wasn’t simply focusing on the “militia” part, she was subtracting that part in her head all together and trying to say that they intended arms to be regulated. Which is simply intellectually dishonest. All in all this all comes down to one issue, Schumer and her family are New York elitists who hate that at any given time the much more numerous poverty class can overtake them with sheer numbers if we could all organize properly as intelligent individuals. Its one of the reasons they infiltrated and infested academia. To keep sound logic and reasoning out of the hands of the masses by tricking them into going into these junk degrees.
They know that given proper education we’ll stick with the more successful capitalist meritocracy and oust them and help everyone earn a successful livelihood. Thanks for your comment and I hope for more from you in the future.