Category Archives: Gun Control
From COTH: http://coth4all.tumblr.com/
Wayne LaPierre lays it out H’T Girls Just Wanna Have Guns
Barack Obama, the candidate who promised Americans in 2008 that “I will not take your guns away,” now, as President of the United States in 2013, has embraced the universal firearm confiscation of Australia and England—schemes that saw the destruction of hundreds of thousands of registered, legal firearms that had been outlawed and taken under threat of force from licensed gun owners by their governments.
Obama revealed his gun control endgame in a Sept. 22, 2013, political speech at a solemn memorial for the 12 Washington Navy Yard victims murdered by a deranged killer on Sept. 16, 2013.
Obama coldly used the madness of a delusional lone mass-murderer to claim that the rampage “ought to lead to some sort of transformation … it ought to obsess us.”
In the same breath, Obama defined his personal “obsession” and his notion of “transformation” for ordinary American gun owners:
“That’s what happened in other countries when they experienced similar tragedies. In the United Kingdom, in Australia … they mobilized and they changed.”
The Washington Post praised Obama’s demand for “transformation” to an Australia-style gun roundup and destruction as “commonsense.”
While the U.S. media either ignored or glossed over Obama’s embrace of the Aussie model for gun bans, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) on Sept. 23, 2013, led its coverage with this:
“The U.S. president, Barack Obama, says it’s time for America to follow the example of countries like Australia when it comes to gun control.”
With a Sept. 23, 2013, headline, “Obama hails Australian gun laws,” Sky News led its coverage with: “President Barack Obama has used Australia as a positive example of a country that tightened gun laws after a mass shooting.”
Go read the whole piece here
From The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
From MM: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
From MM: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
Arguments against the Second Amendment and Their Refutation
Ooh, 2nd amendment arguments! I love these!
- The second amendment as it’s defended today bears little if any resemblance to the reasonably predictable outcomes of the second amendment as it was instituted in the freaking 1700’s. This isn’t about a well-armed-militia or protecting ourselves against the potentially oppressive state. This is the fact that weapons are in many ways fundamentally different from what they were, what they could possibly be, in 1787.
- The NRA routinely opposes laws and policies that have near-unanimous support of the people of the United States. They lobbied against background checks, for fuck’s sake.
- “Guns don’t kill people; people kill people” and “If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns” are shining examples of the full-tilt anti-complexity attitude that dominates our political dialogue, and I vehemently oppose any organization that employs these tactics any more than is strictly necessary to function in the media environment of the United States. They’re both fucking stupid arguments that over-generalize the way people behave and think — and, yeah, criminals and violent people think, they make decisions, they respond to laws in ways that are oriented towards keeping them out of fucking jail. If those changes of behavior mean they have to concede to being less likely to murder lots of people, most of them will make those changes. So, for example, if you can go to jail for just having a gun, nobody is going to use a fucking gun to rob a fucking convenience store. It wouldn’t be worth it for the majority of criminals to carry guns, and guess what? That means less death! Less death = success. A political policy need not eliminate all death, or even all death from a particular cause, to be successful. Politics (and, yeah, this includes the constitution) is basically all about damage control.
- What I just said there? About damage control? Based on their behavior, assuming the majority of the people in charge are remotely competent, it’s pretty obvious the damage the NRA is trying to control is damage to the firearms industry’s bottom line. Frankly — and, if you disagree with me on this, I don’t know what grounds we could possibly have an argument on — I think it would be better for the entire personal firearms industry to collapse, with all the lost jobs that entails, than for that industry to keep enabling widespread access to deadly weapons and a cultural atmosphere that normalizes having and using them. People being jobless is better than people being dead. Formerly rich executives being poor is better than formerly poor people being dead.
- The dialogue on gun control in the US is only one example of many dialogues in which the active refusal to consider any quantity of evidence as adequate is normal and accepted, but it is one of those dialogues, and each and every one of them is irresponsible, nihilistic and existentially threatening to the United States and its people. I hold everyone on your side of this argument personally responsible for a share of the death that your grandstanding causes.
- Fuck the NRA.
- Fuck you.
1. Today’s firearms are not much different accept by loading capability, speed and accuracy. They both fire projectiles from a device using gun powder and kill multiple people as easily witnessed by history. It’s like arguing which is deadlier: a box-cutter or a butcher’s knife. AR-15s are not even automatic in almost every instance that they don’t have a mod of some sort.
Of course the second amendment was meant to protect ourselves and respond to anything that would disturb our free state, so I can understand that concept is way over your critical thinking level. Not to mention, it says flat out that the right of the people to keep and bear “arms” shall not be infringed. They never said, the rights to bear these armaments we hold right now in our hands, in this period of time, (although we have already seen major advancements in warfare and weaponry) because one day advanced armaments may be too awesome for mentally dimwitted individuals to handle, may not be infringed.
2. “The NRA routinely opposes laws and policies that have near-unanimous support of the people of the United States.”
That’s a complete lie and you know it. Drop a legitimate link…if you can find one. You don’t even fully comprehend the background laws you mentioned, do you? You do realize we already have background check, right? Of course you don’t. You’re an ignorant anti-gun ideologue that gets their news from liberal websites that lie to you about this stuff.
3. “full-tilt anti-complexity attitude”
“So, for example, if you can go to jail for just having a gun, nobody is going to use a fucking gun to rob a fucking convenience store.”
You do realize robbing convenience stores is illegal whether using a gun or not, right? In fact, many people use other items to rob people such as knives, bats, or their goddamn finger hidden in their coat. It doesn’t matter, because by hook or by crook, they’re going to mentally choose to rob that convenience store.
“It wouldn’t be worth it for the majority of criminals to carry guns”
It isn’t worth it for the majority of criminals to carry guns today…even with the freedom to carry guns. That’s because they’re criminals. So, I’m not sure where you’re going with this. The point is that criminals want guns because it gives them the upper-hand. Are you really this clueless on how crime works? Seriously…what the hell?
“That means less death! Less death = success.”
Less death of the criminals you mean, right? Because like I just pointed out, criminals want weapons to have the upper-hand. They want a gun to rob the un-armed clerk. Why? Because they automatically win the confrontation. I just wanted to reiterate that for you because I can already assess you’re slow.
4. The Constitution is not about “damage control.” You then said, “the NRA is trying to control is damage to the firearms industry” which is a moot point considering according to the leftwing anti-gun group VPC, between 2005 and 2011 the NRA received a whopping number between $14.7 million and $38.9 million in funding from evil gun industries (that’s a pretty big gap in my opinion, but whatever). That sounds like a lot though…”$38.9 MILLION”…until you see that the NRA reported $227.8 million in revenues in 2010 alone. Oh wait, you didn’t take the time to read your own liberalfactcheck.org who even disagrees with you on the point? Well then, you may have missed the part where they said The NRA Foundation has no staff and pays no salaries. So, you’re talking points are invalid. They don’t pan out. You lose. There’s nothing in it for the dreaded, evil, notorious, infamous, out-to-kill-schoolkids NRA. It’s all a facade cooked up in some liberal moron’s kitchen. Like I said before, they are just an organization out to protect your gun rights and teach gun safety. Most Americans love the NRA, that’s why you keep losing any of the gun control debates…because you really have no clue what the NRA even does.
5. I think I understood what you were trying to say, but honestly it was mostly gibberish trying to sound sophisticated. The one statement that was coherent, “I hold everyone on your side of this argument personally responsible for a share of the death that your grandstanding causes,” made me chuckle. It proves you’re argument is still very simple. You blame the device not the person. You blame creation instead of free will. You see, it’s impossible to get through your thick head that a gun is just a device. No matter how complicated and cumbersome it may seem to you, it is no deadlier than that of a beer bottle in the wrong hands. Murderers will find a way to kill; accidents will happen. Cars kill more people than guns ever have…but these things mean nothing to you because you sir are brainwashed to hate guns. Simple as that.
6. Good one…but you still lose
From Red Blooded America: http://redbloodedamerica.tumblr.com/
Justice Department attorneys are advancing an argument at the Supreme Court that could allow the government to invoke international treaties as a legal basis for policies such as gun control that conflict with the U.S. Constitution, according to Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas.
Their argument is that a law implementing an international treaty signed by the U.S. allows the federal government to prosecute a criminal case that would normally be handled by state or local authorities.
That is a dangerous argument, according to Cruz.
“The Constitution created a limited federal government with only specific enumerated powers,” Cruz told the Washington Examiner prior to giving a speech on the issue today at the Heritage Foundation.
“The Supreme Court should not interpret the treaty power in a manner that undermines this bedrock protection of individual liberty,” Cruz said.
In his speech, Cruz said the Justice Department is arguing “an absurd proposition” that “could be used as a backdoor way to undermine” Second Amendment rights, among other things.
The underlying case, Bond v. United States, involves a woman charged with violating the international ban on chemical weapons because she used toxic chemicals to harass a former friend who had an affair with her husband.
Under the Constitution, such an offense would be handled at the state level. In Bond’s case, the federal government prosecuted her under the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act.
That law implements the Chemical Weapons Convention, the international treaty Syrian dictator Bashar Assad is accused of violating in that country’s vicious civil war.
“The problem here is precisely that Congress, rather than implementing the treaty consistent with our constitutional system of federalism, enacted a statute that, if construed to apply to petitioner’s conduct, would violate basic structural guarantees and exceed Congress’s enumerated powers,” according to Bond’s lawyers.
The Judicial Crisis Network’s Carrie Severino said the Bond case could have ramifications for many other issues.
“If the administration is right, the treaty power could become a backdoor way for the federal government to do everything from abolishing the death penalty nationwide, to outlawing homeschooling, to dramatically curtailing the states’ rights to regulate abortion,” she told the Washington Examiner.
From The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
From MM: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
Found at MM: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
Found at MM: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
Found at Stormbringer: http://seanlinnane.blogspot.com/
To get suspended and have their record permanently blemished, public school students need not do anything truly threatening, like bring a quarter size gun trinket to school or eat a Pop Tart into a shape that vaguely resembles a gun. Moonbat insanity is so far advanced that simply pointing a finger is enough:
An 8-year-old Florida boy was suspended from school after using his finger as a pretend gun while playing cops and robbers with his friends.
Jordan Bennett was suspended for a day after administrators at Harmony Community School in Harmony, Fla., said the gesture was an act of violence, WFTV.com reported. …
School district officials told the station its code of conduct prohibits students from playing with invisible guns.
This is appropriate when you consider that invisible guns exist only in kids’ thoughts, and it is thought crime that educrats punish with their zero tolerance hoplophobic mania.
It isn’t enough that students eschew symbols of masculinity and individual empowerment. They must be conditioned to collapse into gibbering panic at the mere thought of them — just like the moonbats running government schools do.
On tips from Bill T, Clingtomyguns, and Wiggins.
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
Guns are how we misspell evil. Guns are how we avoid talking about the ugly realities of human nature while building sandcastles on the shores of utopia.
It’s not about the fear of what one motivated maniac can do in a crowded place, but about the precariousness of liberal social control that the killing sprees imply.
The gun issue is about solving individual evil through central planning in a shelter big enough for everyone. A Gun Free Zone is where everyone is a target and tries to live under the illusion that they aren’t. A society where everyone is drawing peace signs on colored notepaper while waiting under their desks for the bomb to fall.
That brand of control isn’t authority, it’s authority in panic mode believing that if it imposes total zero tolerance control then there will be no more shootings. And every time the dumb paradigm is blown to bits with another shotgun, then the rush is on to reinforce it with more total zero control tolerance. Zero tolerance for the Second Amendment makes sense. If you ban all guns, except for those in the hands of the 708,000 police officers, some of the 1.5 million members of the armed forces, the security guards at armored cars and banks, the bodyguards of celebrities who call for gun control, and any of the other people who need a gun to do their job, then you’re sure to stop all shootings.
So long as none of those millions of people, or their tens of millions of kids, spouses, parents, grandchildren, girlfriends, boyfriends, roommates and anyone else who has access to them and their living spaces, carries out one of those shootings.
But this isn’t really about stopping shootings; it’s about the belief that the problem isn’t evil, but agency, that if we make sure that everyone who has guns is following government orders, then control will be asserted and the problem will stop.
It’s the central planning solution to evil.
We’ll never know the full number of people who were killed by Fast and Furious. We’ll never know how many were killed by Obama’s regime change operation in Libya, with repercussions in Mali and Syria. But everyone involved in that was following orders.
There was no individual agency, just agencies. There were orders to run guns to Mexico and the cartel gunmen who killed people had orders to shoot. There was nothing random or unpredictable about it.
Gun control is the assertion that the problem is not the guns; it’s the lack of central planning for shooting people. It’s the individual.
A few million people with little sleep, taut nerves and PTSD are not a problem so long as there is someone to give them orders. A hundred million people with guns and no orders is a major problem. Historically though it’s millions of people with guns who follow orders who have been more of a problem than millions of people with guns who do not.
Moral agency is individual. You can’t outsource it to a government and you wouldn’t want to.
The bundle of impulses, the codes of character, the concepts of right and wrong, take place at the level of the individual.
Organizations do not sanctify this process. They do not lift it above its fallacies or do a very good job of keeping sociopaths and murderers from rising high enough to give orders.
Gun control does not control guns, it gives the illusion of controlling people, and when it fails those in authority are able to say that they did everything that they could short of giving people the ability to defend themselves.
We live under the rule of organizers, community and otherwise, committed to bringing their perfect state into being through the absolute control over people, and the violent acts of lone madmen are a reminder that such control is fleeting and that attempting to control a problem often makes it worse by removing the natural human crowdsourced responses that would otherwise come into play.
People do kill people and the only way to stop that is by killing them first. To a utopian this is a moral paradox that invalidates everything that came before it, but to everyone else, it’s just life in a world where evil is a reality, not just a word.
Anyone who really hankers after a world without guns would do well to try the 12th Century which was not a nicer place for lack of guns. The same firepower that makes it possible for one homicidal maniac to kill a dozen unarmed people also makes it that much harder to recreate a world where a single family can rule over millions and one man in armor can terrify hundreds of peasants.
Putting miniature cannons in the hands of every peasant made the American Revolution possible. The ideals of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution would have meant very little without an army of ordinary men armed with weapons that made them a match for the superior organization and numbers of a world power.
Would Thomas Jefferson, the abiding figurehead of the Democratic Party, who famously wrote, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants”, really have shuddered at the idea of peasants with assault rifles, or would he have grinned at the playing field being leveled?
But the Democratic Party is no longer the party of Thomas Jefferson. It’s the party of King George III. And it doesn’t like the idea of armed peasants, not because an occasional peasants goes on a shooting spree, but because like a certain dead mad king who liked to talk to trees, it believes that government power comes before individual liberty. Like that dead king, it believes that it means this for the benefit of the peasants who will be better off being told what to do.
The question is the old elemental one about government control and individual agency. And tragedies like the one that just happened take us back to the equally old question of whether individual liberty is a better defense against human evil than the entrenched organizations of government.
Do we want a society run by kings and princes who commit atrocities according to a plan for a better society, or by peasants with machine guns? The kings can promise us a world without evil, but the peasant with a machine gun promises us that we can protect ourselves from evil when it comes calling.
It isn’t really guns that the gun controllers are afraid of; it’s a country where individual agency is still superior to organized control, where the trains don’t run on time and orders don’t mean anything. It’s afraid of individual power.
Evil finds heavy firepower appealing, but the firepower works both ways.
A world where the peasants have assault rifles is a world where peasant no longer means a man without any rights. And while it may also mean the occasional brutal shooting spree, those sprees tend to happen in the outposts of utopia, the gun-free zones with zero tolerance for firearms. An occasional peasant may go on a killing spree, but a society where the peasants are all armed is also far more able to stop such a thing without waiting for the men-at-arms to be dispatched from the castle.
An armed society spends more time stopping evil than contemplating it. It is the disarmed society that is always contemplating it as a thing beyond its control.
Helpless people must find something to think about while waiting for their kings and princes to do something about the killing. Instead of doing something about it themselves, they blame the freedom that left the killer free to kill, instead of the lack of freedom that prevented them from being able to stop him.
Seemingly before the Navy shooting was over, the Obama Administration along with anti-gun giants Dianne Feinstein and Bloomberg were calling for a new gun control push.
These anti-gunners were trying to brainwash Americans soon after the shooting. They said the shooter used an AR-15 during the attack and extensive gun control is needed so this does not happen again. No surprise they did not get their facts right.
The last mass shooting that took place in Newtown, CT was followed by an exploitation of a tragedy when there was a massive push for gun control at every level. That wave of gun control was held off earlier in 2013. Now the Obama Administration and their anti-gun puppets are ready to exploit another tragedy. Most of them have already made public statements demanding more gun control. It is our job to make sure the public does not fall into their trap.
At least after the Newtown shooting the anti-gun crowd took their time to convince America that they cared about the victims. Not after the Navy yard shooting. In Obama’s first statement after the shooting:
“We’re gonna be investigating thoroughly what happened, as we do so many of these shootings, sadly, that have happened and do everything that we can to try and prevent them.”
Anti-gun queen Feinstein was a bit more blunt in her approach:
“This is one more event to add to the litany of massacres that occur when a deranged person or grievance killer is able to obtain multiple weapons – including a military-style assault rifle – and kill many people in a short amount of time. When will enough be enough? Congress must stop shirking its responsibility and resume a thoughtful debate on gun violence in this country. We must do more to stop this endless loss of life.”
The shooter came armed with a double barrel shotgun like the one pictured to the left. He was found with an AR-15 and 2 pistols that he had taken from victims. The FBI said they do not believe the shooter used an AR-15 at all.
No gun control bill would have stopped this; no gun control bill would ban a double barrel shotgun tailor-made for hunting. As you can see in the picture to the left, double barrel shotgun simply means it can only hold 2 rounds at a time. Many countries with strict gun control laws do not even ban basic hunting shotguns.
This is the type of brainwashing the anti-gunners like to use. They make you believe a normal every day citizen walked into a gun shop and purchased a devastating assault weapon legally with no trouble. One way this shooting may have been prevented is if there were more strict mental health regulations surrounding firearm purchases.
USA Today reported that the shooter sought mental health help as soon as a month before the shooting. If he had been flagged as unstable when he sought mental health help, he could have been stopped from legally purchasing that shotgun.
We need to stop focusing on the firearm and start focusing on the insane person that pulls the trigger. Whether it is mass shootings or murders every day in Chicago, putting restrictions on our firearms will not stop criminals. The death penalty and life in prison has not stopped psychos from committing murder. Nearly 100% of the murders in Chicago are done by gang members using illegal guns. It is not Joe Smith going to the gun shop and purchasing a legal firearm to hunt, go to the range, or protect his home with.
We are about to be in the midst of a massive push for gun control at every level. This happens after every mass shooting. The anti-gunners see it as an opportunity to exploit a tragedy and to push their agenda.
We must collect as many resources as possible to be ready to defend your gun rights in the courts from anti-gun laws coast to coast. Earlier in 2013, Second Amendment patriots were able to bond together and defeat the massive wave of new gun control. We must do it again.
Thank you. I know I can count on you.
Alan M. Gottlieb
Second Amendment Foundation
From MM: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
Obama and the Cambodian Khmer Rouge Share the Same Ideology – Destroy Everyone who Will Intelligently Question their Authority
From MM: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
I remember when a fast food chicken sandwich restaurant became, out of nowhere, a hotly contested battle ground in the gay marriage debate. Everything was fine, everything was normal, everybody was eating chicken, until suddenly liberal activist organizations were encouraging gay men have heated make out sessions at their local Chick-fil-A, and Christians were countering with a Bible in one hand and waffle fries in the other. Boycotts, rallies, Appreciation Days, demonstrations, fundraisers — it was war. Personally, I have plenty of opinions on the topic of gay marriage, but on the topic of Chick-fil-A all I ever cared about was their chicken.
Millions of people cried out, “We must win Chick-fil-A to our side!”
And I courageously stood and shouted, “Can I get a number one with a Diet Coke?”
I didn’t think political discourse could get any more absurd than the Gays vs. Chicken War of 2012, but that was before the CEO of Starbucks said the word “gun” and the whole world exploded.
If you missed the “controversy,” it all started when Starbucks announced a few months ago that the guns policy in its stores would follow local laws and ordinances. If you live in a state where open carry is allowed, you can open carry in your local Starbucks. If you don’t, then you can’t. Simple. Sensible. Neutral. Cool, let’s all move on with our lives, right? Nope. Sorry, this is America and we’re bored, so we’re going to turn this thing into a crisis just for the hell of it. Some gun rights activists and gun owners (note, I said “some”) responded by marching into their neighborhood Starbucks toting ARs, AKs, and shotguns. They gathered in large groups, all packing heat as openly and visibly as possible, and took pictures to post on Twitter and Facebook. They wanted to “prove a point,” they claimed. But nobody understood the point they were trying to make, and I’m not sure they did, either.
I received several emails from people proud to show me photos of their “demonstration.” Invariably, it was an image of some guy flashing his holstered firearm in the middle of the store, while a lady in the background looks on with an expression of concern and befuddlement. My response was always the same: the store let you carry that inside, why are you punishing them for it? Yes, perhaps other patrons shouldn’t be worried just because half of the people in the store are armed to the teeth, but they will be worried. And you know it. So your act of “appreciation” is to hurt the business you claim to appreciate by abusing the thing you appreciate them for? I’m confused. And befuddled. Actually, I guess I can relate to that woman in the photo.
This is like if I permit you to wear shoes in my house, so you, rejoicing my leniency, celebrate by jumping into a mud puddle, stomping on my carpet and putting your feet up on my coffee table. Congratulations, I’ve just amended my shoe policy, and it’s all your fault.
I love gun rights, I’m a humongous Second Amendment advocate, and I have consistently and passionately used whatever little voice I have to advocate for the rights of gun owners, but this — this is not activism. This is a disservice to the gun rights movement. Responsible gun owners don’t parade around coffee shops with their shotguns just so they can post a photo of it on social media. Responsible gun owners aren’t impressed with themselves; they see the gun as a tool — not a toy, not a fashion accessory, not a “point,” not an excuse to cause a scene — and they carry that tool with a sense of maturity and discipline. I live in Kentucky. People open carry here all of the time. It doesn’t bother me in the slightest and I would fight tooth and nail against any politician who would try to abridge that right. But carting a bunch of firearms into a Starbucks just to prove you can? Come on. There are real battles to be fought, but they don’t involve mocha lattes and overpriced frappucinos.
Starbucks had a reasonable and neutral gun policy, but a select group of attention seekers wanted to force the company to choose a side. Starbucks, for some reason, has to be “pro-” or “anti-.” So a few days ago the CEO issued a statement ASKING his customers to refrain from bringing guns into his stores. He said people with guns will not be kicked out, and they will not be denied service, but he would like everyone to voluntarily respect the rule. Of course this announcement of a voluntary business policy was greeted with accusations of “discrimination,” and cries of “rights” being violated.
I don’t even like Starbucks; I know auto parts shops that have better complimentary cups of Joe. I’m also aware that the corporation has some left-leaning tendencies and, stereotypically, attracts a more liberal clientele. But I’m not going to act like they’ve done something wrong here just because I’m “supposed” to be on the other “side.” There doesn’t need to be a side. The gun rights fight doesn’t belong in a Starbucks due to the fact that, frankly,YOU DON’T HAVE GUN RIGHTS IN A STARBUCKS. Do you know why? Because it’s a private establishment and they can make whatever rules they like. They decided that it doesn’t particularly help their business to have customers in their stores, drinking coffee with a rifle propped up against the table, so they changed their rules accordingly. They have the right to do that, you have the right to go elsewhere. You don’t have the right to make your own rules for their private business.
Indeed, the only “rights” at stake here are the rights of private business and private property. I wish more than a few people in this country actually gave a damn about those types of rights. They aren’t as sexy or as flashy, but they are necessary. In fact, none of your other rights mean anything if you don’t possess the basic entitlement to govern your own businesses and set the rules on your own property. I’ve seen folks on the internet declare their intention to open carry inside a Starbucks regardless of the rules. Again, these are not activists. The gun rights movement should not embrace them. People who believe in liberty, believe in liberty it in all of its forms. They wouldn’t set their Second Amendment rights against another’s private property rights. They understand that our rights are in harmony, not in competition. In other words, the issue over at Starbucks isn’t gun rights vs. property rights, it’s just anti-property rights vs. pro-property rights. Gun rights have nothing to do with the situation.
Here’s how this works. A business owner comes to the marketplace and says: “Hey everyone. I’ve got this business I started. We make coffee, it tastes like you’re licking the pavement on a hot day, it’s fantastic. Anyway, here are the prices, and here are the rules, and here are our hours of operation, and if this all seems attractive to you, please come on in and let’s do business. Otherwise, you’re free to get your black tar coffee elsewhere.”
Now, we don’t get to counter with our own rules, and our own prices, and our own hours of operation. We don’t get to say, “you close at 9 but I feel like coming at 10,” anymore than we can say, “you don’t want guns in your store but I’m bringing one anyway.” We can go with their program, or we can go somewhere else. That’s it. End of discussion. We can impact the prices and the rules within the context of the free marketplace, but we don’t get to claim joint ownership of the enterprise and then complain that our rights are violated because we disagree with how they choose to do business. People who still choose to bring their weapons into Starbucks are choosing to undermine private property rights. They’re just as bad as the gun grabbers in DC, and perhaps even more hypocritical.
As a secondary concern, I’m really getting quite sick of this new American pastime where we troll business owners and force them to “have a position” on the divisive issues of the day, then promptly punish them no matter what they say. Some businesses choose to wade into ideological waters, but many are pushed into it. It’s ridiculous. Why can’t coffee and chicken be apolitical? Why does everything have to be a controversy?
Am I only supposed to do business with people who share my ideology?
What’s next? Are we going to demand that the guy who owns Radio Shack publicly endorse a side in the euthanasia debate? Then, if he’s against it, we can stick it to him by staging assisted suicides in the store, right next to the cell phone chargers. Hey, next time you stop to buy a drink from a little kid’s lemonade stand, insist that the child explain his views on campaign finance reform. Then, if he says the wrong thing, dump the lemonade on his head and stage demonstrations outside of his mom’s house until they’re forced to move out of the neighborhood.
This “controversy” is another example of the media presenting a distraction to the public, telling them “the sides” and sitting back while millions of Americans fall in line and react exactly how they were told they should. Of course plenty of “conservative” talk radio hosts jumped on this Starbucks Outrage Bandwagon because it’s easy and it will get the phones ringing. I tried to present a more nuanced and objective perspective and now I’ve got listeners emailing accusing me of being a “liberal” and a “traitor.”
Welcome to America. Now get in your preassigned box and toe the line. Don’t worry about thinking for yourself, we’ll do that for you.
**UPDATE: Many people have commented or emailed to challenge the consistency of my private property stance. They asked whether I’ve spoken out about the Christian business owners who have been persecuted and, in some cases, actually prosecuted for holding a Biblical view of marriage and sexuality. For the record, I’ve been all over this issue. I wrote about it recently, you can find it here: http://themattwalshblog.com/2013/08/16/youre-an-inbred-white-trash-hick-and-i-say-that-because-i-value-tolerance/
We have an Orwellian “Fairness Ordinance” here in Lexington, KY, that has led to a Christian businessman being charged with a “human rights” violation for declining to produce t-shirts advertising a gay rights parade. I’ve been one of the loudest voices against this particular unconstitutional atrocity, and many like it. You may disagree with me (a lot of people do) but I’m not inconsistent. Thanks for reading.
California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein is renewing her call for new gun-control laws because of Monday’s deadly Navy Yard shooting.
“When will enough be enough?” Feinstein said in a statement Monday evening.
“Congress must stop shirking its responsibility and resume a thoughtful debate on gun violence in this country,” she said. “We must do more to stop this endless loss of life.”
Lets see here. Again, Feinstein the Statist wants to politicize tragic deaths and trample the right of self-defense. Why not look at HOW the shooter at the Naval Yards had security clearance? He had an arrest record after all, and a troubled past.
Aaron Alexis, the Navy vet suspected in the killing of 12 people at Washington’s Navy Yard, had a troubled past that included two previous arrests involving shootings and a “history of misconduct” in the Navy.
Alexis, who friends described as a convert to Buddhism, was arrested in Fort Worth in 2010 after firing a gun into his neighbor’s apartment, leaving her “terrified,” according to a police report.
In addition, he was arrested in 2004 in Seattle for shooting out the tires of a construction worker’s car in an incident he later described as “an anger-fueled blackout.”
So where is Feinstein’s call for better vetting of who is given access to military bases? What of the “multiple weapons” We know he got one of them from a security guard he killed
Two federal officials told the Associated Press that Alexis had an AR-15 assault rifle, a shotgun and a handgun that he took from a police officer at the scene. The two officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss a pending investigation.
Apparently video shows him entering with ONLY a shotgun, so it would seem he got the “AR-15 after he shot the guard as well
Another interesting detail from NBC Washington, which is sadly relevant to the new national conversation on guns we’ll soon be having at the Democrats’ and the media’s urging:
Video also shows the gunman entered with a shotgun, News4′s Jackie Bensen reported. He shot the security guard and continued through the building, but according to what witnesses are telling investigators, by the time the shootings ended, the gunman was seen with a semiautomatic 9 mm pistol and an AR-15 assault rifle.
Authorities are investigating whether the gunman took the security guard’s service weapon – likely a 9 mm pistol – and hid in wait for the first responding D.C. police officers, who would be specially armed with AR-15s, then opened fire and shot one of the D.C. police officers in the legs. It’s unclear if the other officers assisting the wounded officer also were able to retrieve his AR-15.
Details could change, but no matter what the facts are vultures like Feinstein do not care about anything but exploiting this tragedy. They want us disarmed, and they are certainly not above lying.
From The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/