So with currently no action on barring people who are the authoritarian no-fly list from buying guns. Democrats including prominent civil rights figure Jon Lewis have staged a sit-in on the House floor. I personally don't see this sit-in accomplishing anything than getting attention in the media and creating funny internet memes. On one hand a government doing something outside of passing more statist
legislation that will continue to erode our rights to me is a good
thing. Politicians should sit around and do nothing more often.
The reason for this sit-in should also put to bed the notion that the left is for civil liberties. With some rare exceptions such as Glenn Greenwald who has been consistently against the national security state since 9/11 majority of the left has made it's peace with the national security and warfare states. Alternatively you could say that they were just anti-Bush, anti-conservative (not that I don't disagree with that sentiment) and just were anti-police state out of spite rather than actual interest in defending civil liberties. However it's not just the sit-in that points this out, it's been the entire Obama error, the anti-war left fire more or less died (again some very small exceptions) and the left learned to love the police state. Sure they do a dog and pony show for issues such as police brutality but in reality it's just all bark and no bite. There have maybe a time when the left actually defended civil liberties but that time has lone passed.
Don't get me wrong, this doesn't mean I all of a sudden I trust conservatives with civil liberties. No way in hell this current episode in political theater changes that. I've said for years that conservatism (and all three flavors; paleoconservatism, neoconservatism and neoreactionary) and liberalism are just two different flavors of socialism. I still hate conservatives but one can't help but see that the left's latest stunt makes conservatives appear in a better light on the surface. Sadly there are still libertarians of several stripes out there who think that movement can work with conservatives but that's another argument for another day.
In conclusion with very few expections such as Rand Paul, Justin Amash along with Russ Feingold and Dennis Kucinich (when Feingold and Kucinich were in office) liberalism and conservatism has no interest in protecting our liberties. It's foolish to think otherwise. They'll do their respective songs and dances to show that they are somehow different from their "opposition" but in reality they don't want to roll back the state just be in control of it.
Showing posts with label second amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label second amendment. Show all posts
Saturday, June 25, 2016
Sunday, June 19, 2016
I'm a Gun Owner and No I won't Apologize
Sadly another mass shooting has happened and has taken the lives of many innocent people who just trying to have a good time. Predictably, the left had attacked gun rights with some calling for an outright ban on the Second Amendment. Whether these new attacks lead to legislation is unknown at this time but how the left continues to lie about gun owners and pushes another attempt at this collective responsibility bullshit.
One of the principals of libertarianism is individualism; you own yourself, your responsible for yourself and you are your own man. The left thinks as a gun owner I'm some how responsible for the massacre that happened in Orlando. I'm not the one who pulled the trigger so how can left blame me or any other gun owner for what happened? This particular attack has no logic to it, does the left realize that this is the same collectivist blame that conservatives and neoreactionaries like to place on muslims, jews and non whites for when individual members of these groups commit crimes? The left is correct when they decry when these type attacks happen but have no problem using them for their own statist agenda. Then again the left is no stranger to hypocrisy nor do they care about being called out on as such. I refuse to bow down to pressure from any statist to apologize for something that I did not do.
Collective punishment and blame runs counter to a constitutional republic given how in constitutional republics everyone is equal under the eyes of the law. Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Fascist Italy, Greece under the Junta (1967-1974), North Korea, Cuba, Spain under Franco are examples of countries who believed in collective punishment. Those in favor of collective punishment don't care about facts and innocent until proven guilty, all that matters to them is that if one belongs to a group of people, expresses a particular opinion, engages in particular activity etc that person is guilty and is responsible that simple association. Alternatively collective punishment and blame can be viewed as guilty until proven innocent which puts the burden of proof on the accused as opposed to the accuser.
The left says that they just want to keep guns out of the hands of bad people. On the surface of this statement isn't evil because who wants thugs and terrorists to have guns to kill innocent people? I would wager not many people. However in reality people who wish to harm others are going to do it anyway whether there is a law on the books or not. Criminals don't care about legitimate laws thats why they're criminals. All gun legislation does is harm innocent people. Background checks, lists, databases, mental health screening, ammunition stamping does nothing to prevent future tragedies but cause more red tape for innocent people to defend themselves. Also not just red tape that such measures create, seeking government approval to exercise one's right it creates a tool in which people can use against political enemies.
Some on the left say that only the government should be armed. The same government that has agents that willingly violate the 4th amendment? The same government agents who openly violate the rights of people knowing full well they'll get away with it if they ever reach a courtroom? This kind of logic is insane.
Historically gun control was started to prevent newly freed slaves from defending themselves from people who wanted to harm them. Today's gun regulations can still do just that. For example lets take someone who is gay, some in this country still think homosexuality is a mental disorder. A state with mental health screenings as a precursor to obtaining a firearm could be used against a gay individual who wishes to arm themselves. Similar gun control measures can be used against other groups of people by those who issue gun licenses such as county clerks and sheriffs. Why should the rights of individual be subjected to the approval of others? When a right is to be determined to be granted by another then it's no longer a right it's a privileged and last time I checked the second amendment is not a privilege but a right.
In a free society there will always be bad events, bad people and bad situations that's the reality. No piece of legislation will ever fully eliminate the horrible elements of society. However it has been proven statistically that the more armed a society the less likely tragic events such as what happened down in Orlando will happen. Criminals like easy targets because an unarmed person is less likely to deliver any serious harm to a criminal. If the left was ever actually serious about protecting the rights of minority groups (they weren't) then they would ditch gun control and allow gays and minority groups to arm themselves to defend themselves from those who wish to harm them. Also not just them but everyone.
One of the principals of libertarianism is individualism; you own yourself, your responsible for yourself and you are your own man. The left thinks as a gun owner I'm some how responsible for the massacre that happened in Orlando. I'm not the one who pulled the trigger so how can left blame me or any other gun owner for what happened? This particular attack has no logic to it, does the left realize that this is the same collectivist blame that conservatives and neoreactionaries like to place on muslims, jews and non whites for when individual members of these groups commit crimes? The left is correct when they decry when these type attacks happen but have no problem using them for their own statist agenda. Then again the left is no stranger to hypocrisy nor do they care about being called out on as such. I refuse to bow down to pressure from any statist to apologize for something that I did not do.
Collective punishment and blame runs counter to a constitutional republic given how in constitutional republics everyone is equal under the eyes of the law. Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Fascist Italy, Greece under the Junta (1967-1974), North Korea, Cuba, Spain under Franco are examples of countries who believed in collective punishment. Those in favor of collective punishment don't care about facts and innocent until proven guilty, all that matters to them is that if one belongs to a group of people, expresses a particular opinion, engages in particular activity etc that person is guilty and is responsible that simple association. Alternatively collective punishment and blame can be viewed as guilty until proven innocent which puts the burden of proof on the accused as opposed to the accuser.
The left says that they just want to keep guns out of the hands of bad people. On the surface of this statement isn't evil because who wants thugs and terrorists to have guns to kill innocent people? I would wager not many people. However in reality people who wish to harm others are going to do it anyway whether there is a law on the books or not. Criminals don't care about legitimate laws thats why they're criminals. All gun legislation does is harm innocent people. Background checks, lists, databases, mental health screening, ammunition stamping does nothing to prevent future tragedies but cause more red tape for innocent people to defend themselves. Also not just red tape that such measures create, seeking government approval to exercise one's right it creates a tool in which people can use against political enemies.
Some on the left say that only the government should be armed. The same government that has agents that willingly violate the 4th amendment? The same government agents who openly violate the rights of people knowing full well they'll get away with it if they ever reach a courtroom? This kind of logic is insane.
Historically gun control was started to prevent newly freed slaves from defending themselves from people who wanted to harm them. Today's gun regulations can still do just that. For example lets take someone who is gay, some in this country still think homosexuality is a mental disorder. A state with mental health screenings as a precursor to obtaining a firearm could be used against a gay individual who wishes to arm themselves. Similar gun control measures can be used against other groups of people by those who issue gun licenses such as county clerks and sheriffs. Why should the rights of individual be subjected to the approval of others? When a right is to be determined to be granted by another then it's no longer a right it's a privileged and last time I checked the second amendment is not a privilege but a right.
In a free society there will always be bad events, bad people and bad situations that's the reality. No piece of legislation will ever fully eliminate the horrible elements of society. However it has been proven statistically that the more armed a society the less likely tragic events such as what happened down in Orlando will happen. Criminals like easy targets because an unarmed person is less likely to deliver any serious harm to a criminal. If the left was ever actually serious about protecting the rights of minority groups (they weren't) then they would ditch gun control and allow gays and minority groups to arm themselves to defend themselves from those who wish to harm them. Also not just them but everyone.
Monday, December 24, 2012
Blame the Person Not the Object
Another tragedy has enveloped the country and as usually the wrong suspects take the blame. At the time of this writing only two have come up; 1. Guns and 2. Video Games (or for some the entertainment industry as a whole). Predictably those who blame these two want the state to engage in some sort of enforcement to restrict if not outright ban law abiding people from obtaining either object. This type of outrage is misplaced and is not grounded in logic.
Video games and guns alone don't commit the horrors that is the Sandy Hook shooting and the shootings before it, someone does have to pull the trigger. Some may view the phrase "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" as a cheap argument but it's the truth. Guns aren't possessed by demonic spirits that brainwash the user into going into public and shooting as many people as possible no the gunmen know exactly what they're doing when they slaughter innocent people. Do we all of a sudden call for bans of vehicles in order to prevent car accident deaths? Vehicles can be made into weapons to you know? No we don't and anyone who would make such a ridiculous argument would be laughed at and rightly so. It's a human right to be able to defend yourself and in these times a gun whether it's a pistol, a shotgun, a rile, etc is the most likely solution. One could make the case for swords, axes and other melee weapons but from the looks of things it doesn't seem that modern society has to worry about attacking mongol hordes (or any other hordes on horseback for that matter) anytime soon. However it is good to have at least a knife around.
Gun restrictions only help the criminals and contribute to the murders of innocents. In addition the amount of mindless red tape that your run of the mill law abiding person has to swim through in order to get a pistol borders on being criminal. One shouldn't have to go through government approval in order to exercise a right. The right to bare arms should not be on the same level as the privilege to drive a vehicle. For example I present to you two pictures from the pistol permit application from Orange County in New York state.
Picture one looks pretty normal for your standard government red tape form
http://i1252.photobucket.com/albums/hh569/nycynic/Political%20Sheets/pistolpermit1_zps8624922e.jpg
Here is picture number 2 when one goes down the list
http://i1252.photobucket.com/albums/hh569/nycynic/Political%20Sheets/pistolpermit2_zpsf57f45fa.jpg
Not only is the concept of having to get the state's approval to exercise one's right is absurd but the fact that a government needs to know your race because you wish to have a way to defend yourself is pathetic. What purpose does it serve for the government to know your race? Is their a special type of gun that is tailored to a specific race or some other absurd idea? One can draw their own conclusions but it's just another reason on how the government is not colorblind despite what the media and it's own cadre of lapdogs say.
In Orange County the process from filing the application to getting your actual permit from the county takes on average three to six months. Obviously this varies depending in which state and possibly county one lives in. If one feels that their life or those around them is in danger, three to six months is an awful long time to wait. Criminals don't like fair fights and aren't going to wait for their victims to gain equal footing against them. Like the drug war if people want to get a banned or restricted object or substance they will find a way to get it and commit the crime anyway.
Gaming and for some people the entertainment industry as whole has become the second whipping boy in the wake of Sandy Hook. Like guns the blame is fueled by emotion and lack of logical thought. Reports came out that shooter Adam Lanza played video games, so those who lack critical thought quickly tried to pin point gaming as one of the causes of Lanza's rampage. The problem with that is that Lanza wasn't some small child, he was a twenty year old man. By the time one is that age, one can tell the difference between right and wrong. There isn't a grey area in the question of killing innocent children. If there is one I sure as hell would like to see it. When it comes to gaming, the responsibility is on the parent. The old saying goes; "If you don't like it then turn it off/don't buy it/don't listen to it, etc." and throw in some good discipline for good measure.
Prohibition doesn't work no matter how good the intentions are the law of unintended consequences will rear it's ugly head sooner or later. In a true free society one must recognize that bad things do happen and that utopia is not an option.
Video games and guns alone don't commit the horrors that is the Sandy Hook shooting and the shootings before it, someone does have to pull the trigger. Some may view the phrase "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" as a cheap argument but it's the truth. Guns aren't possessed by demonic spirits that brainwash the user into going into public and shooting as many people as possible no the gunmen know exactly what they're doing when they slaughter innocent people. Do we all of a sudden call for bans of vehicles in order to prevent car accident deaths? Vehicles can be made into weapons to you know? No we don't and anyone who would make such a ridiculous argument would be laughed at and rightly so. It's a human right to be able to defend yourself and in these times a gun whether it's a pistol, a shotgun, a rile, etc is the most likely solution. One could make the case for swords, axes and other melee weapons but from the looks of things it doesn't seem that modern society has to worry about attacking mongol hordes (or any other hordes on horseback for that matter) anytime soon. However it is good to have at least a knife around.
Gun restrictions only help the criminals and contribute to the murders of innocents. In addition the amount of mindless red tape that your run of the mill law abiding person has to swim through in order to get a pistol borders on being criminal. One shouldn't have to go through government approval in order to exercise a right. The right to bare arms should not be on the same level as the privilege to drive a vehicle. For example I present to you two pictures from the pistol permit application from Orange County in New York state.
Picture one looks pretty normal for your standard government red tape form
http://i1252.photobucket.com/albums/hh569/nycynic/Political%20Sheets/pistolpermit1_zps8624922e.jpg
Here is picture number 2 when one goes down the list
http://i1252.photobucket.com/albums/hh569/nycynic/Political%20Sheets/pistolpermit2_zpsf57f45fa.jpg
Not only is the concept of having to get the state's approval to exercise one's right is absurd but the fact that a government needs to know your race because you wish to have a way to defend yourself is pathetic. What purpose does it serve for the government to know your race? Is their a special type of gun that is tailored to a specific race or some other absurd idea? One can draw their own conclusions but it's just another reason on how the government is not colorblind despite what the media and it's own cadre of lapdogs say.
In Orange County the process from filing the application to getting your actual permit from the county takes on average three to six months. Obviously this varies depending in which state and possibly county one lives in. If one feels that their life or those around them is in danger, three to six months is an awful long time to wait. Criminals don't like fair fights and aren't going to wait for their victims to gain equal footing against them. Like the drug war if people want to get a banned or restricted object or substance they will find a way to get it and commit the crime anyway.
Gaming and for some people the entertainment industry as whole has become the second whipping boy in the wake of Sandy Hook. Like guns the blame is fueled by emotion and lack of logical thought. Reports came out that shooter Adam Lanza played video games, so those who lack critical thought quickly tried to pin point gaming as one of the causes of Lanza's rampage. The problem with that is that Lanza wasn't some small child, he was a twenty year old man. By the time one is that age, one can tell the difference between right and wrong. There isn't a grey area in the question of killing innocent children. If there is one I sure as hell would like to see it. When it comes to gaming, the responsibility is on the parent. The old saying goes; "If you don't like it then turn it off/don't buy it/don't listen to it, etc." and throw in some good discipline for good measure.
Prohibition doesn't work no matter how good the intentions are the law of unintended consequences will rear it's ugly head sooner or later. In a true free society one must recognize that bad things do happen and that utopia is not an option.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Want to excerise your rights? If so the government needs to know your race
Over at Ammo Land it's been discovered that the new federal firearms transaction form now includes the question asking the said buyer if he is hispanic or not. First of all having to fill out any type of form to exercise one's rights is ridiculous in itself but then having to put one's race down is absurd. Funny how the state tries to say that it's colorblind but at the same time pulls mindless crap like this.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Scratch Steve Levy off the Pro Liberty Column
If you follow Stonezone.com the blog of political dirty trickster Roger Stone, today he wrote about the happenings within the New York Republicans and the Governors race. His comments towards Blue Dog Democrat turn Republican Steve Levy aren't kind describe him as anti-second amendment. Now I wouldn't call Stone a liar but since Stone is currently helping Kristen Davis' campaign for Governor I had to get confirmation. I had emailed the New York State Rifle &
Pistol Association (New York's biggest second amendment organization) to see what Levy's gun record had been. According to Jacob J. Rieper, Vice President of Legislative
& Political Affairs, Levy had received an F when he served in the State Assembly and only improved somewhat as Suffolk County Executive.
Bottom line Levy is another political opportunist taking advantage of the broad anti-statist movement. He was quite crafty about it, meeting with Republican leadership to show the people that he is about state and not party, then changes his affiliation from Democrat to Republican. Levy should be nowhere near Albany, the state has had enough of gun grabbers, regardless of the outcome of the Chicago case currently going on in the Supreme Court. So currently as it stands only three candidates remain on the pro gun side Warren Redlich, Kirsten Davis (which both are fighting for the Libertarian nomination) and Tea Party candidate Carl Paladino.
Pistol Association (New York's biggest second amendment organization) to see what Levy's gun record had been. According to Jacob J. Rieper, Vice President of Legislative
& Political Affairs, Levy had received an F when he served in the State Assembly and only improved somewhat as Suffolk County Executive.
Bottom line Levy is another political opportunist taking advantage of the broad anti-statist movement. He was quite crafty about it, meeting with Republican leadership to show the people that he is about state and not party, then changes his affiliation from Democrat to Republican. Levy should be nowhere near Albany, the state has had enough of gun grabbers, regardless of the outcome of the Chicago case currently going on in the Supreme Court. So currently as it stands only three candidates remain on the pro gun side Warren Redlich, Kirsten Davis (which both are fighting for the Libertarian nomination) and Tea Party candidate Carl Paladino.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)