In response, there has been a great deal of special pleading from conservative quarters. A lot of the gun owners whose names and addresses were mapped are “first responders,” conservatives have been lamenting. “We can’t expose our [sainted] first responders to any dangers.”
The Bill or Rights was meant to protect individuals against the state. It defends the people from the government; not the obverse. But trust conservatives to elevate the “oink sector,” in the debate over the right of gun owners to privacy.
If anything, “first responders,” and other members of the oink sector—having sold their souls to the state—need to accept the risks that go with exercising ultimate decision-making powers in society, to use Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s term.
Government workers–the special interests—are expected to live with the risk of the job. They accept the perks and the pensions, don’t they?
On Mr. Hannity’s Great American Panel, Noel Nikpour, a tedious Republican strategists who talks up a storm on that forum, extended her exquisite understanding of individual rights to … people like herself and her co-panelists. You know, important sorts who fly a lot; they ought to be able to acquire a permit that’ll exempt them from being screened afresh [by TSA goons] as they scurry to their important appointments.
This evening, Sean Hannity provided a forum for some very impressive gun owners, all of whom had been “outed” by the The Journal News. These were highly intelligent people, more than capable of articulating the essence of the freedoms they were exercising.
Still, sympathy is all “conservatives” like Mr. Hannity are able to offer to these exposed individuals. Sympathy and an appeal to the decency of the media (laughable, I know).
Republicans have no leg to stand on in objecting to the publication of gun-owner addresses, as they argue from the positive law. And the positive law, defended by all so-called “reasonable” conservatives, compels all law-abiding individuals to register with the state when purchasing a fire arm. (To this registration, libertarians like myself would object.)
Information thus collated and centralized is accessible to all.
An appeal to the sympathy and decency of the liberal establishment: That’s all statist “conservatives” have to offer in the case of The Journal News Vs. the gun owners of Westchester and Putnam counties.
I once harbored hope that due to self-interest, the Stupid Party, Republikeynesians, may just tackle the 17th amendment (as in repeal it), a 1913 abomination that sundered the republican scheme of governance put in place by the Founding Fathers, whereby senators were to be elected by the respective state legislatures. But I was operating under the naive assumption that Republikeynesians may have had a stake in the Constitution’s original intent.
Since they don’t, it is understandable that Republican senators would align themselves with Majority Leader Harry Reid and other Senate Democrats in furtherance of Senate “reform.”
A group of liberal Democrats had been pushing Reid to trigger the so-called “nuclear option” on Thursday, the first day of the 113th Congress, to make it more difficult for the minority to stall legislation and nominees.
Say bye-bye to the legislation-stalling filibuster.
The filibuster is a powerful parliamentary device in the United States Senate, which in recent years has meant that most major legislation (apart from budgets and confirmations) requires a 60% majority to head off a filibuster. In recent years the majority has preferred to avoid filibusters by moving to other business when a filibuster is threatened …
Efforts to retard legislation are a good thing, unless the legislation being sabotaged is legislation to repeal and nullify other legislation.
“Junior Democrats, including Sens. Tom Udall (N.M.) and Jeff Merkley (Ore.),” have been successful in recruiting to their nefarious cause some familiar sickos such as the too-decrepit-to-filibuster (as in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington)”Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), as well as Sens. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and John Barrasso (R-Wyo.).”
This lot “favor[s] using the nuclear option, which they call the ‘constitutional option,’ to effect this change through a simple majority vote. But they need 51 of the 55 members of the Senate Democratic Conference to back them.”
It is a well-known fact that US Senators are comatose. But we’d like their legislative efforts to be as still as their comatose minds.
Indeed, both Americas deliberative bodies are in a comma, but that’s not because of a deficit in democracy driven, legislative Brownian Motion (besides which the Founders were no fans of democracy).
The news reports are as muddled as ever on this issue. Some reports claim that the colluding quislings wish to force senators who filibuster to actually speak on the floor. That sounds good. However, can “the majority leader call for a simple majority vote on the pending business once the debate stops”? That I do not know.
You Know You’re a GUN CONTROL HYPOCRITE IF….
You consistently call a magazine a clip
You think an AR 15 is an assault rifle
You have armed security guards
You are in possession of an illegal magazine while arguing gun control on national television
Your kids have armed security guards
Your kids’ school has 11 armed security guards
You think a .223 is a military round
You think the thing that goes up is a barrel shroud
Your husband used to sell crack
Your husband raps about crack
When you hear the words “fast and furious,” you think, “Oh, great movie.”
You rule a country where a large part of the city from which you originated is a killing zone, even though no one is allowed to carry a firearm.
You’ve never held a gun.
You’ve never shot a gun
You’ve never read the Second Amendment and looked beyond the mere words on the paper. …
“If you’ve ever carried concealed, if you’re Piers Morgan, if you own a knife, if you live in a gated community—anyone in the “Demand a Plan” video—the first thing out of your mouth when you heard about the Sandy Hook shooting was gun control.”
You own a gun-free zone establishment.
You drafted an assault-weapon’s ban but you carry concealed.
You think the NRA is the KKK.
…If you’ve ever used a gun in a movie.
If you don’t know the difference between a high-capacity magazine and a standard capacity magazine
You think hollow-points are cop killer bullets.
You think there’s a gun-show loophole.
Everything you know about guns is from TV and movies. You think cops are expert gunmen.
[SNIP]
If you ask me, hypocrisy is too soft and imprecise a word for the detritus of humanity described by Brother “Noir.”
UPDATE I (12/31/012): LOTT LOSES. Piers Morgan refuses to allow guest John Lott to speak to the issue of statistical murder rates and gun ownership. But then Dr. Lott does not try to make a point, now does he? Meek and ineffectual is the word when it comes to to the so-called right and its defense of rights.
MORGAN: National handgun ban. And it was incredibly effective. Australia, the same thing.
Now, John Lott, your answer is more guns makes America safe, even though you look at the statistics, you have 300 million in circulation and you have the worst gun murder rate of any of the wealthy countries of the world by a massive multiple.
How do you justify the claim more guns makes more safe people in America? I don’t — don’t get it. JOHN R. LOTT, JR., AUTHOR, “MORE GUNS, LESS CRIME”: Every place that guns have been banned, murder rates have gone up. You cannot point to one place, whether it’s Chicago or whether it’s D.C. or whether it’s been England of whether it’s been Jamaica or Ireland… MORGAN: That’s a complete lie. LOTT: It is not! MORGAN: It’s a complete lie! MORGAN: The gun murder rate in Britain is 35 a year average! LOTT: Do you understand… MORGAN: You need to stop repeating a blatant lie about what happened in other countries! LOTT: Look, sir… MORGAN: Thirty-five gun murders a year… LOTT: You don’t — you… MORGAN: No, you’re not going to get away with this! LOTT: No! Just one… MORGAN: You lied about it the other day! LOTT: Sir…
MORGAN: Thirty-five gun murders a year in Britain, 11,000 to 12,000 in America! LOTT: You… MORGAN: Stop… LOTT: No! You don’t even understand simple math! MORGAN: What you say drives Americans… LOTT: Can I explain something… MORGAN: … to go and buy weapons… LOTT: Well, there’s a difference between… MORGAN: … to defend themselves! LOTT: … saying something’s low and that it increased. What I say is there’s lots of reasons why murder rates differ across countries. But when a ban is put on, it still may end up being lower than someplace else, but it went up!
What’s so difficult about quickly interjecting a word about the meaningless of absolute murder numbers, absent other demographic data such as total population, where crime is concentrated and clustered—its racial and urban vs. rural complexion, etc.
The equal opportunity idiocy on Piers Morgan continues. “The 2nd Amendment didn’t take into account assault weapons,” says purveyor of pop spirituality, DEEPAK CHOPRA.
When they passed the 2nd Amendment, they had muskets. It took 20 minutes to load one, and half the time, you missed, OK? The 2nd Amendment didn’t take into account assault weapons, the fact that you can buy them through the secondary market or you can load up on ammunition through the Internet.
So, by logical extension, should the 1st Amendment also be contingent on the extent to which technologies can be used to the detriment of some? During the Founding, I presume, there were no megaphones or loudspeakers. Is Chopra implying that as offensive speech got louder and more easily transmitted, the Founders would have reconsidered the right to free speech? Regulated the Internet? Is anyone suggesting that had the framers, some of whom were inverters, foreseen today’s technological innovations, they’d have written a different document?
Of course that’s what’s implied by a statist like Chopra, whose inspiration is eastern mambo-jumbo, not John Locke.
The Bill of Rights is a document of individual liberties, setting limits on government, not a document meant to recalibrate individual liberties in light of each era’s technological innovations.
UPDATE III (1/2/2013):Hollywood whores. When are you going to boycott their pathetic products?
More crucially, Piers is not guilty of preaching treason for preaching against the government, or the dead-letter Constitution. The more men so preach, be it on the left or the right—the merrier. Treason, in my book, is an act against The People’s natural rights to life, liberty and property (later today I will explain to the perplexed why the right of self-defense is an extension and a prerequisite of the right to life).
What Piers is doing is preaching treason against The People.
But is not the agitation for the violation of individual rights an act of free speech? In libertarian law—the only universally just law—there is no free speech without private property. You can’t deliver a disquisition in my living room without my explicit permission, as owner of the abode. But from your property, you may preach whatever is in your heart: hate, love, violence, etc.
Is Piers preaching treason from private property (CNN)? Probably. Is asking for his deportation, as some Americans are, a use of force, or just an exercise of free speech, to counter Piers’ true hate speech? Is deportation a use of force? Besides being a royal pillock, Piers Morgan is an immigrant from the UK.
You can see why the penalty some of our countrymen seek for Piers may be disputed by libertarains.
Ultimately, what Morgan is doing is reprehensible. The man disgusts me.
On a positive note: I started this blog yesterday, prompted by the site of the pillock Piers’ blockhead on my TV screen, interviewing a retarded PhD from “the crap country of Britain.”
There is no shortage of pinko pukes on Fox News, especially among the women folk. “Anyone who wants a gun must go through state training and a certification process over a number of months,” writes Elizabeth MacDonald (whom I quite liked), “if not a year, similar to what police officers go through. That process would include a deep-dive background check. All gun sales or exchanges must be registered with states and towns.”
