Feel free to go and educate.
This will be a non-gun owner readership, so please remember to spread that kind of love that only we principled gun owners can bestow.
Hearts and minds. [More]
Friday, March 13, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Just posted this; hopefully it's helpful. Interestingly, thus far over there it's all us.
____________________
J Richardson points out what we call "unintended consequences", and it happens every time one group of people decides to force its will on another.
I would add another point: there really are other ways of looking at the world here. The article makes this statement:
"However, gun owners want to circumvent the judicial process via legislation."
Funny, what that implies. Is it not legislation and its enforcement that compels an otherwise free individual to have to beg someone's permission for the means or the manner in which he "may" protect his own and other lives?
Why is it okay for collective groups to use legislation that destroys individual privacy, but not okay for individuals to "subvert" that in exercise of both a natural and specifically protected right? (Here I thought the Bill of Rights was intended to protect the individual from the tyranny of the majority, but increasingly I am told this is prima facie evidence that I'm off my rocker. We truly live in a strange world.)
For reasons I have never understood, people seem all too willing to confer legitimacy, authority, and competency--automatically, and every time--to any public official who makes a sufficiently fire-and-brimstone case that "we" need to force "them" to submit to [insert coercive imposition here*], in the name of us all, praise be and amen. Us, or them: choose. You're either with us, or agin' us. (This sounds familiar, right?)
How is this not exactly, precisely, wholly, totally, and completely the very way we have landed ourselves in this greater sorry mess that we find ourselves in, in the first place?
History does not seem ambiguous on this point: in the history of governments, there is only one difference between the forcible subjugation of one group (for whatever the reason) and the forcible subjugation of everyone who is not a forcible subjugator (and let's face it, everyone who is not at the very top of the forcible subjugation chain). That difference is TIME.
So why in the blue marble do we continually return to a bankrupt concept, not seeing it for what it is?
Personally, I think it among the very gravest insults to human dignity, that any collective would demand that the individual beg permission to protect its life by whatever means it is capable of employing (and doubters here need to explain themselves to poster Kurt Hoffmann, for reasons that will become obvious), but again, apparently I am nuts.
To whoever would use the force of government as a tool against another's liberty: remember those you cast aside in your expedience, for you have conceded the point already, and by the time the thugocracy gets around to something you DO care about--an absolute inevitability if you read any history--you will not have them to lean on.
The following quote appears in various permuted forms, but the point is always the same:
"First they came for the Communists but I was not a Communist, so I did not speak out;
Then they came for the homosexuals but I was not a homosexual, and said nothing;
Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists but I was not one of them, so I did not speak out;
Then they came for the Jews but I was not Jewish so I did not speak out.
And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."
______________
* Ever notice, as well, that such coercive mandates always seem to be prefixed with words like "reasonable"? What is truly reasonable, that must be advertised specifically as such? It's almost as if even the concept's professional salesmen know that the idea they're hawking is unconscionable on its face, and in order to make it fly, they have to push the hard sell.
Great, Kevin. :) So, when can I expect another article for PoL? You do good work.
I have a better idea. In the spirit of fairness, let's advocate the pubishing of list of those who DON'T have concealed weapons permits. Let their neighbors guess why they did not qualify, even if they never applied. Let home invaders and burglars know that they have a fighting chance of success. Let possession of a CWP take on the status of an unlisted telephone number.
First off, a state's requirement for a concealed weapon permit is a coercive action that forces citizens to pay for being allowed to exercise a right allegedly protected by the U.S. Constitution.
The state would be just as empowered to require licenses for speech, free association, interstate and intrastate travel, and/or church attendance.
I have read and re-read the Constitution and all it's amendments many times. It still contains the same words as it did the first time I read it. And, in the wording of the Second Amendment, there is still a period and no additional qualifying wording after the phrase "shall not be infringed".
When the American people submit to and condone unconstitutional permit and/or registration requirements, private or not, we are no longer citizens, we are subjects and ALL of our rights are on the table for negotiated "reasonable" infringement.
If you regulars haven't already, take a look at David's Examiner column for 14 March.
David, I posted a comment on the Examiner site and I really did try to be nice.
I posted on Michael's site on two different columns. I didn't try to be nice. He has earned a dressing down and I hope I gave him one.
Columns on 12Mar09 and 16Mar09.
I hope the rest of you go and help expose this cretin.
Post a Comment