Right, this is the fault of gun rights advocates. Never mind that he stabbed half the people he killed, and most of the people in the hospital he ran down with his car - it's still a mass SHOOTING, not a mass stabbing or a mass hit-and-run, or just a mass murder. No, it's guns that are responsible, obviously. Never mind that he purchased his guns legally in California, meaning that he passed a universal background check, could only buy guns on the state's "safe" handgun list, had to register his guns, and had to go through a 10-day waiting period. Also, in compliance with California law, he didn't have even one single high (read "standard") capacity magazine. The truth is that California has passed every single gun control wish-list law ever conceived (except those already ruled unconstitutional), and yet all of them together, even when obeyed, as every single one was in this case, do exactly squat to prevent a psychopath from killing people. Get a clue morons; it's not guns, it's psychos who want to kill lots of other people - just like the one who also killed 3 people (with a gun) in Belgium today, where the gun laws are far more restrictive than anywhere in the US.
Saturday, May 24, 2014
Sunday, May 18, 2014
Re: Assassination Markets...
Inside Mcfloogle's Mind Well, here I was ready to have a nice, uncontroversial Sunday night and then I saw this. Oh well, I've got a grill going, some beer, and a beautiful clear night, so let's go.
Let me preface this by saying that I do not hold the NAP as axiomatic. It is an excellent guideline, but it does not sufficiently answer every situation. I prefer to use the Michael Huemer-style "common sense" approach.
Okay, so is someone justified to put a bounty on the heads of politicians? The idea of killing someone is unpleasant. It makes it easier when they are actively threatening someone's life. When they are several steps removed from threatening someone's life, it is admittedly more difficult to muster up the fervor to see justice through, despite them being the definite cause of the violence. This is why it's so difficult for people to see laws of the state being enforced by the barrel of a gun--it would take numerous steps for it to escalate to that level.
Speaking of which, let us not forget that EVERY law enforced by the state is done so with the threat of death to violators. This is different from the way any non-psychotic person would act when enforcing the rules they make on their own property. If you stole five dollars from me, I am well within my rights to demand restitution or recover my stolen property, but if you refused to pay me back, in no way would I be justified in locking you in a cage for it or killing you if you refused to be put in the cage. The penalty doesn't fit the crime.
No matter how small or silly the infraction, the state will escalate their response to death if you refuse to give in to their demands. Remember that beer I said I had? It's illegal. It was purchased in Delaware and brought back to Pennsylvania for consumption. That's illegal. If I got caught and refused to acknowledge any of the supposed authority of the state, they would undoubtedly kill me over it. Therefore, it is not unfounded for me to say that I am under the threat of death by politicians and other state officials.
Because this death threat is real and is essentially made to every single person within the state, self-defense would be warranted. It makes it even more of a justified position given the fact that many of the federal government agents have direct input into the military strikes that kill innocent men, women, and children overseas (and even in this country sometimes).
An objection to this view is that an assassination would not have any effect on the killing that the state does. After all, the state is a cold machine and if one politician were to leave an almost identical one will fill in. But would it really not have any effects? I've got to imagine that it would make a lot of heads spin and very likely cause at least some officials to say, "You know what? We've got to ease off here." In that sense, it saves lives.
My hope is that the threat of death from these sort of assassination organizations is enough to make the state back down. I'd prefer to see as little bloodshed as possible (ideally none) and anarchists pushing this agenda (although justified as it may be) aren't going to win over many new converts.
This is a dilemma caused by the state and brought on upon themselves. You reap what you sow. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Those who live by the sword, die by the sword. I have no interest in being involved in this sort of endeavor, but if it's something that people want to stop, they have to take a look in the mirror.
If you've made it this far, wow. I figured I'd selfishly use this an exercise in ethics for myself and lay it all out.
Let me preface this by saying that I do not hold the NAP as axiomatic. It is an excellent guideline, but it does not sufficiently answer every situation. I prefer to use the Michael Huemer-style "common sense" approach.
Okay, so is someone justified to put a bounty on the heads of politicians? The idea of killing someone is unpleasant. It makes it easier when they are actively threatening someone's life. When they are several steps removed from threatening someone's life, it is admittedly more difficult to muster up the fervor to see justice through, despite them being the definite cause of the violence. This is why it's so difficult for people to see laws of the state being enforced by the barrel of a gun--it would take numerous steps for it to escalate to that level.
Speaking of which, let us not forget that EVERY law enforced by the state is done so with the threat of death to violators. This is different from the way any non-psychotic person would act when enforcing the rules they make on their own property. If you stole five dollars from me, I am well within my rights to demand restitution or recover my stolen property, but if you refused to pay me back, in no way would I be justified in locking you in a cage for it or killing you if you refused to be put in the cage. The penalty doesn't fit the crime.
No matter how small or silly the infraction, the state will escalate their response to death if you refuse to give in to their demands. Remember that beer I said I had? It's illegal. It was purchased in Delaware and brought back to Pennsylvania for consumption. That's illegal. If I got caught and refused to acknowledge any of the supposed authority of the state, they would undoubtedly kill me over it. Therefore, it is not unfounded for me to say that I am under the threat of death by politicians and other state officials.
Because this death threat is real and is essentially made to every single person within the state, self-defense would be warranted. It makes it even more of a justified position given the fact that many of the federal government agents have direct input into the military strikes that kill innocent men, women, and children overseas (and even in this country sometimes).
An objection to this view is that an assassination would not have any effect on the killing that the state does. After all, the state is a cold machine and if one politician were to leave an almost identical one will fill in. But would it really not have any effects? I've got to imagine that it would make a lot of heads spin and very likely cause at least some officials to say, "You know what? We've got to ease off here." In that sense, it saves lives.
My hope is that the threat of death from these sort of assassination organizations is enough to make the state back down. I'd prefer to see as little bloodshed as possible (ideally none) and anarchists pushing this agenda (although justified as it may be) aren't going to win over many new converts.
This is a dilemma caused by the state and brought on upon themselves. You reap what you sow. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Those who live by the sword, die by the sword. I have no interest in being involved in this sort of endeavor, but if it's something that people want to stop, they have to take a look in the mirror.
If you've made it this far, wow. I figured I'd selfishly use this an exercise in ethics for myself and lay it all out.
Wednesday, April 2, 2014
The Embarrassing Second Amendment
I cannot help but suspect that the best explanation for the absence of the Second Amendment from the legal consciousness of the elite bar, including that component found in the legal academy, 28 is derived from a mixture of sheer opposition to the idea of private ownership of guns and the perhaps subconscious fear that altogether plausible, perhaps even "winning," interpretations of the Second Amendment would present real hurdles to those of us supporting prohibitory regulation.
http://www.constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.htm
http://www.constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.htm
Impotent fury
Interesting how the West now rails with impotent fury at the Ukrainian plebiscite. The latter event would have never taken place if not for the machinations of NATO, stirring the pot with ultra-rightest provocateurs and government by way of hooliganism. What I don't understand is the obligatory flogging of the Western public with a Russfed smear campaign.
Thursday, March 27, 2014
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
Reliable Progressive...
To: socalgop
Kagan is generally regarded as a reliable “progressive” vote for more government power. If she is not participating, a 4-4 split means the decision stands, and much of the nasty Lautenberg amendment becomes unconstitutional as it has been applied.
No more losing your constitunal rights for a lifetime because of the accusation that you yelled at your girlfriend.
No more losing your constitunal rights for a lifetime because of the accusation that you yelled at your girlfriend.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)