Imagine parents who have lost a family member to gun violence having to allow a renter to possess firearms. [More]Or parents who have suffered a miscarriage having to allow a renter to possess Planned Parenthood literature...
Or parents who have lost a family member to Islamic terrorists having to allow a renter to possess a Quran...
Or...
And by the way, "laws" notwithstanding, I believe the most effective and moral means of combating marketplace discrimination is through free market choices.
WaPo just keeps getting more and more shrill and ridiculous, but "imperil[ing] homeland security" has to be about the most transparently Orwellian argument, especially when juxtaposed against what the Founders knew to be "necessary to the security of a free State"...
I may take up a collection and send their editorial staff a box of these...
1 comment:
The DC government needs to get chopped down to its proper tiny size.
The right to keep and bear arms is critical, and I can find no legal limit whatsoever on the arms that a free person can keep and bear.
That aside, the matter of interferring by "law" with a private property owner deciding how to manage owned property is ghastly.
How would such a law be any different from forcing Fuddruckers to allow folks in with openly carried handguns? Most readers here I'm sure will agree that while Fuddruckers' decision is ignorant and morally wrong, a law FORCING the will of "government" upon the owner of private property is even worse.
In other words, not only do I see private property rights as the basis for ALL other rights (if you can't own anything, including your own self/body, you can't have any rights), I see private property rights as the moderating factor between so-called "public safety" and keeping and bearing arms of all sorts.
If I wish to keep a crate of old RP-7 warheads and a launcher in a closet, the Second Amendment clearly prohibits government from restricting my right to do so. However, if my closet is in a pasteboard rental apartment building, that may not be a responsible way to exercise my right.
The owner of the property, therefore, has the right to dictate how the property is used, either through such things as a rental contract/agreement, or a "Contracts and Covenants" sales agreement (which I personally find quite distasteful).
Thus the "problem" of the grenades in the closet three feet away from my neighbor's sleeping face is solvable using nothing but simple property rights. If I still wish to keep some of my more powerful tools of liberty close at hand, I'll need to buy a place of my own (preferably with enough space to dig out a proper magazine on the property, as a responsible free person would).
DC can go to hell; it'd be a mistake to drag property owners down along with it.
Post a Comment