Krugman: NRA an ‘insane organization’

11 thoughts on “Krugman: NRA an ‘insane organization’”

1. I have to say it again:
   Paul Krugman proves the old adage that A Dumbass With a PhD Is Still a Dumbass!

2. The popular notion that the police exist to protect or defend the individual is completely wrong. The police are there to enforce the laws and to arrest lawbreakers so that they may be tried. An individual’s safety is entirely up to one’s self and the government should be, to the greatest extent possible, facilitating their ability to do so. Currently we are going the opposite direction in this country and it sickens me.

3. No, he is merely the Obama of economics. A totally incompetent boob that idiots will quote because he got a prize from equally incompetent boobs.

4. “Guns symbolize everything they are against, and therefore should be restricted as much as possible, if not confiscated outright–for the general welfare.”

   They WOULD ban and confiscate all guns if they could. They can’t. So they engage in incrementalism, nibbling at the edges of gun ownership. Now, they are trying some big bites, because they think the American psyche, post SHES, will allow it, even though none of their proposals would have prevented the Sandy Hook murders.

5. If you can’t make convincing arguments in the battle of ideas, then attack the opponent’s character, sanity or motives. Surely Krugman knows that law enforcement cannot be everywhere and, according to the Supreme Court you have no inherent right to expect them to be there to protect you. I’d guess that Krugman lives and works in well guarded and protected areas giving him a comfort factor many do not have. Does he really expect the same level of protection for everyone? Although self-defense is a very valid reason to own a firearm, there is no Constitutional needs test for firearm ownership. I sometimes wonder if both the NRA and the likes of Krugman miss that. Krugman, as usual, loses in the arena of ideas and goes on the attack.

6. Paul Krugman is an insane economist.

7. I sort of agree.

8. In spite of the obvious practical benefits of gun ownership, it’s best to understand guns as being symbols. A gun represents lethal force in the hands of the individual, to be used in defense of legal and natural rights. It’s the ultimate statement of the Constitutional notion that rights are vested in the individual, and very extremely so.

   This symbol is hated by collectivists and statists, who believe in group rights emanating from a supposedly benevolent state. Guns symbolize everything they are against, and therefore should be restricted as much as possible, if not confiscated outright–for the general welfare.

   That’s where the battle lines are drawn. It’s why new legislative proposals don’t provide more school safety. They want nothing less than the death of individualism.

9. “They have this vision that we’re living in a ‘Mad Max’ movie and that nothing can be done about it, that America cannot manage unless everybody’s prepared to shoot intruders, that the idea that we have police forces that provide public safety is somehow totally impractical, despite the fact that, you know, that is, in fact, the way we live.”

   “Police forces that provide public safety.” How’s that working out for the kids at Sandy Hook?

   Decadent jerk.

   There were three home invasions within a half-mile of my house two years ago. No safety was provided by the police. Deputies came after it was all over. They took statements and prepared reports.

   They provided NO safety. They helped no one when there were strange men in their house. Libtards seem unable to comprehend this. Should someone break into your house while you are home, your only hope is YOU.

10. The only normal people are the ones you don’t know very well.

11. …and Krugman obviously thinks he’s the only sane one….