If you're wondering why I've given up on so-called "organized" political activity, left the Libertarian Party (formally and informally) and have zero interest in either the Republican or Democrat parties as they currently exist, you need only look at the "controversy" over a local NY Newspaper that published the names and addresses of gun permit holders.
The article, in explaining the decision to publish the information, pointed to the school massacre in nearby Newtown, Conn., and the concerns of some residents about which of their neighbors might have firearms.
But readers swiftly condemned the move. They pointed out that the interactive map could make the gun owners a target, but also make clear to would-be robbers which homes do not contain a gun.
"Do you fools realize that you also made a map for criminals to use to find homes to rob that have no guns in them to protect themselves?" one reader wrote on Facebook.
"You have just destroyed the privacy of these law abiding citizens and by releasing this list, you have equated them to that of sex offenders and murders," wrote another. "These are law abiding gun owners, they are no danger to anyone except for criminals. And with this information you have made them targets for both criminals and anti gun lobbyist who i am sure are going to treat them like monsters."
Destroyed the privacy? Made a map?
I got an email with a pithy comment this morning from a local Libertarian leader that was essentially one of those "coming to a newspaper box near you" sort of comment.
As if the problem is the First Amendment!
Gee, you think so eh? I know, I know! The newspaper was able to do this all nice and neat because of innovation in publishing. Interactive maps are now pretty easy; not long ago they were hard, and not long before that they didn't exist.
So I'm going to do what I usually do -- I'm going to shine the light where it belongs.
At the Second Amendment.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Yeah, that's hard to understand.
Those who believe that the bolded part of the sentence is limited by the un-bolded failed English class. Go back to school and until you pass please surrender any and all professional "credentials", most-particularly those related to teaching or otherwise pontificating on the meaning of words.
Shall I quote what gave rise to the Constitution and Bill of Rights?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Yeah.
If you have an unalienable right to life then you have the right to defend that life against all who would take it from you, irrespective of who they are. If you have an unalienable right to liberty, then you have a right to defend that liberty against all who would take it from you.
So what's this "permit" crap?
For a gun?
For a driver license?
Let me guess -- you needed a license to ride a horse in colonial America? To exercise your right to liberty, that is, to change your physical location from one place to another, using the common tools and devices of the day? What would Jefferson, Hamilton or Madison have said to such a notion?
So is the problem that some newspaper published data? No, it is that you first demanded that your neighbor seek permission to defend his own life or exercise his liberty, and then once he did, you got pissed that someone else used their right to liberty to publish information that you gave up due to an unlawfuldemand that you voluntarily complied with?
Who's the idiot here and why is your outrage directed at a newspaper?
Why aren't you surrounding the NY State House and demanding an immediate repeal of all infringement of the 2nd Amendment, and openly proclaiming (and backing up your demand, if necessary) that you will not comply with what is clearly an unlawful demand by that governmental body?
It's easier to bitch about some other party that's exercising its constitutional rights (in this case the First Amendment), yes?
Of course it's easier. The latter course of action -- the correct one -- would involve both personal responsibility and personal risk. You might get arrested.
There are those who claim that "sacking the State House", which of course is the extreme outcome, would be blatantly and outrageously unlawful.
Those folks forget that such a remedy is highly unlikely to be necessary to actually impose upon the state; after all, there are about 350-400 of you (citizens) to every one of them (instruments of the government "machine".)
The real reason all this happens is because you're a toper; you are drunk on the falsehood that government can do whatever the hell it wants and worse, you're not only consenting to it you're demanding it!
There is a lawful method available to amend The Constitution. Not all that long ago, on January 17th of 1920, to be exact, the people amended The Constitution to restrict liberty.
Specifically, on that date it became illegal to exercise the right of the people to intake intoxicating liquors. The people followed the process set forth in the Constitution to lawfully amend it to specifically bar this action -- to constrain all of the rights not explicitly delegated to government in one instance that the people felt was justified.
On December 5th 1933 the people changed their collective mind and restored the former liberty interest of consumption of intoxicating liquors.
No amendment has ever been passed to constrain the right of the people to keep and bear arms; indeed, the Second Amendment explicitly says the opposite.
Nor has any amendment ever been passed to constrain the right of the people to personal Liberty, which inherently involves the right to change one's location using the common tools and items of the day, for other than commercial purpose.
Nor has any amendment ever been passed to constrain the right of the people to intake intoxicating substancesother than alcohol. Yet we have "drug laws", all of which are blatantly unconstitutional except as they apply to the movement of such substances for commercial purpose across state boundaries.
The problem is not that some newspaper published a list.
It's that the people permitted such a list to exist in the first place, that they refused to demand their God-given right to life and liberty be respected and that they be left alone in the exercise of both in the first instance.
And finally, there are no political parties, not even so-called "third parties", that are worthy of your support in this regard today, as exactly none of them stand on and will defend your unalienable rights.
Until you, your neighbor, and the rest of your town changes its mind in this regard, and actually pays attention to what Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison and others believed and were willing to pledge their lives, wealth and sacred honor to defend and protect, there is no resolution to these problems -- nor any political body that gives a damn about any of it.
And that, my friends, is a fact.
No comments:
Post a Comment