To some this may see boring, and I understand,....however, this gets to the base of the elitist academe world that knows better than we do...Especially with regards to those evil firearms, made available to the masses.....
So I defer to the expert, our own fightingquaker. When it comes to interpreting those in society who are above us lowly common folk, and know what's best for us...
Big words matter,....
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-national/profiling-and-predicting-a-leftist-agenda-academic-papers-on-gun-control?CID=examiner_alerts_article
Profiling and predicting a leftist agenda in academic papers on ‘gun control’August 2, 2011 -
Social Science Research Network has published a new scholarly work, “Profiling and Predicting Opinions on Gun Control: A Comparative Perspective on the Factors Underlying Opinion on Different Gun Control Measures.” The researchers who wrote it are Amy Semet of Columbia University. Nathaniel Persily from Columbia Law School, and Stephen Ansolabehere, Harvard University - Department of Government. They surveyed “over 1,000 participants.”
From their abstract:
[E]galitarian or libertarian factors do not appear to be as important a motivator of public attitudes as they do not achieve statistical significance in multivariate regression analysis once we control for other factors. Indeed, we find that demographic cleavages, most importantly along the lines of gender, or the individual’s underlying viewpoint on constitutional issues, such as on Roe v. Wade or free speech, matters as much or more so than their cultural worldview in informing opinion on gun control. Further, to the extent a cultural worldwide informs opinion on gun control, our survey indicates that it is a libertarian worldview — as opposed to an egalitarian view — that predicts opinion.
WTF did this say?Whatever. Smart people sure use big words. Shall we look at the paper itself?
From the “Introduction”:
In crafting the Second Amendment, our nation’s forefathers gave us the right to bear arms.
Hold the phone right there. No they did not either. The Founders understood rights to be natural and unalienable. There is no section in the Constitution where the power to grant rights is delegated to any branch of government. And it’s settled law, as early as Cruikshank in 1876, and upheld in the recent Heller opinion:
This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.Then there’s this bit of ivory tower folderol that fits the doctrinaire worldview of elite academics from Columbia and Harvard, but has a tough time finding traction with anyone
who’s not a useful idiot: On its face, the right appears unconditional, but like with so many of our constitutional guarantees,
our Constitution is a living and breathing document whose protections are interpreted with respect to changing times and current realities.
Ah, yes, Al Gore’s “living Constitution.” Typical regressive claptrap. Sure there’s an amendment process, defined, disciplined and tough to enact—as the Framers intended. Apparently, for these eggheads, it really does depend on what the meaning of the word “is” is, as long as they get to change the definition to suit their agenda.
There’s more, but why bother? The three knuckleheads have tripped into a stoogepile right out of the starting gate, and have no credibility for either subject matter expertise or judgment from this point on.
Besides, they have plenty of other false premises, including the wrong idea on egalitarianism, insofar as it’s the hard core gun rights activists who are the strongest proponents of the right to keep and bear arms belonging to all. And loopy assertions like “Indeed, it is no stretch to say that even the most hardened gun advocate favors some governmental restriction on the most dangerous semi-automatic and assault weapons” just show how ignorant of “hardened gun advocates” these cloistered children are.
As far as demographics and regions and education and sexuality and feelings on abortion or environmental issues or all the other noise these people like to measure things by and draw conclusions from, the most important baseline is nowhere established or even broached: What do the respondents actually know about the issue they’re being questioned on? Do they know what levels of “gun control” already exist? When you ask them if they favor banning “assault weapons,” could they even tell you what one is? Could the study authors?
Aren’t they guns that have a shoulder thing that goes up?
What this paper contributes to the debate is irrelevant anyway, because for some of us, the issue is non-negotiable. It doesn’t matter how many ignoramuses the authors stack up meaningless tick marks on a survey form for, because we recognize the intent of all this is to give the illusion of academic gravitas to a morally and intellectually impoverished gun ban camp. And guess what? We don’t need no stinking “multivariate statistical analysis.” We’re not impressed and don’t care.
And guess what else? We will not disarm.Matter of fact, some of us won’t rest until we bring Constitutional carry to the campuses of Columbia and Harvard…I mean, you never know when Amy, Nathaniel or Stephen might find themselves alone some night walking back to their cars when suddenly…
UPDATE: Comment poster "mikee" left this observation at my War on Guns blog announcement for this post. The truth of it merits sharing here:
The errors in law and history you cite from the article are noteworthy in that they passed through the multiple layers of editing and peer review that this paper underwent.
***
I leave it to the "expert(s)" to interpret.....
MBTV
Forum Index
Help
Calendar
Contact Info
Register as a member
Topic: I Need Help To Interpret An Academic Peer Review Of Firearms,....FQ? (Read 2991 times)