He said, “Do you think it’s morally right to punish someone who’s done nothing wrong?”
And I said, “No.”
He said , “Then why do you think it’s morally right to reward someone who’s done nothing right?”
— Penn Jilette
Full video:
He said, “Do you think it’s morally right to punish someone who’s done nothing wrong?”
And I said, “No.”
He said , “Then why do you think it’s morally right to reward someone who’s done nothing right?”
— Penn Jilette
Full video:
Set your anti-gun bias aside. You should be outraged about the “Fast And Furious” scandal. This is not how our government and so-called “leaders” should behave. Because if they’re doing this evil, what else are they doing?
Given all the politics and the cover up that even the former ATF director says has occurred, could operation Fast and Furious have been about anything other than pushing for new gun-control laws? And given all of this obfuscation from the Obama administration, isn’t this scandal comparable to the cover up that surrounded Watergate? After all, both administrations forgot that America is a country that reveres its freedom of the press and that in America officers speak out when misguided policies get cops killed. Here mothers testify before Congress when they find out a secret government program, and a stupid one at that, got their son killed.
Not that morality ends at the American border. To stress this point, Rep. Issa held a conference call with journalists on September 21 in which he said Marisela Morales, Mexico’s attorney general, is reporting that at least 200 Mexican deaths can now be traced to weapons from the Fast and Furious program.
And so the investigation and the bloody aftermath continue….
Forbes has this excellent write up.
The NY Post has an article as well.
Let that sink in: After months of pretending that “Fast and Furious” was a botched surveillance operation of illegal gun-running spearheaded by the ATF and the US attorney’s office in Phoenix, it turns out that the government itself was selling guns to the bad guys.
[…]
People were killed with Fast and Furious weapons, including at least two American agents and hundreds of Mexicans. And the taxpayers picked up the bill.
So where’s the outrage?
There’s none from the feds. Attorney General Eric Holder has consistently stonewalled Rep. Darrell Issa, Sen. Chuck Grassley and other congressional investigators.
In a constantly evolving set of lies, Holder has denied knowing anything about Fast and Furious while at the same time withholding documents from the House and Senate committees looking into the mess while muzzling some witnesses and transferring others.
Makes you wonder what the agenda was….
There are two possible explanations. The first is that the anti-gun Obama administration deliberately wanted American guns planted in Mexico in order to demonize American firearms dealers and gun owners. The operation was manufacturing “evidence” for the president’s false claim that we’re to blame for the appalling levels of Mexican drug-war violence.
If this is true, then Holder & Co. have got to go — and the trail needs to be followed no matter where it leads. For the federal government to seek to frame its own citizens is unconscionable.
A second notion is that the CIA was behind the whole thing, which accounts for all the desperate wagon-circling. Under this theory, the Agency feared the los Zetas drug cartel was becoming too powerful and might even mount a coup against the Mexican government. So some 2,000 weapons costing more than $1.25 million were deliberately channeled to the rival Sinaloa cartel, which operates along the American border, to keep the Zetas in check.
Of course, there’s a third explanation — that both scenarios are true, and that those in charge of Fast and Furious saw an opportunity to shoot two birds with one Romanian-made AK Draco pistol.
Generally speaking, those of the “Liberal” or “Democrat” ilk claim to be “of the people”, and all about “choice”.
It’s my body, let me do what I want with it. It’s my life, stay out of our bedrooms. And so on. Choice choice choice.
So if they’re so pro choice, why aren’t the consistently pro choice?
They tend to be anti-gun. Why do they deny a woman the ability to choose how to defend herself? If you want to choose to defend yourself with a knee to the crotch and yelling “NO!” that’s your choice. I think a serving of lead is a lot more effective, but hey… it’s your choice.
They want to choose what we can and cannot see for advertising, because it could “harm the children”. We can’t choose what to see, what to watch, what to be exposed to, and how to raise our own children. No choice, they know better.
We can’t choose to raise food for ourselves, nor to consume the food we raise.
We can’t choose what to put in our own bodies. Even those things well-established to be good for us. Seems to be rather contradictory, when they clamor about health and obesity, then people want to do things to help their health, no no… can’t do that.
Even if it’s something that could be harmful, aren’t I an adult that’s allowed to make my own choices?
I just don’t get it.
If you’re so “pro choice” why aren’t you consistently pro choice?
(The “Conservatives”/Republicans are well out to control you too, but at least they don’t claim to be pro choice). And if you don’t know, I don’t affiliate myself with either of these goon parties.
“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men, they predictably create for themselves a legal system that authorizes and protects it, a political party that enshrines it, and a ‘moral’ code to justify it.”
Frederic Bastiat
There’s movement afoot for National Reciprocity.
H.R. 822, introduced in the U.S. House by Representatives Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) and Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), would allow any person with a valid state-issued concealed firearm permit to carry a concealed firearm in any state that issues concealed firearm permits, or that does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes. A state`s laws governing where concealed firearms may be carried would apply within its borders. The bill applies to D.C., Puerto Rico and U.S. territories. It would not create a federal licensing system; rather, it would require the states to recognize each others` carry permits, just as they recognize drivers` licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards. Rep. Stearns has introduced such legislation since 1995.
I’ve been torn on this issue because it hits two things dear to me: gun rights, and state’s rights. While sure the gun rights side of me would love to see this happen, it also feels like it’s potentially stepping upon state’s rights since as it is most gun laws — including concealed carry — is instituted at the state level. How to reconcile these? I know a lot of people, especially these days, are happy to jump on whatever part of politics achieves their goals: if screaming “states rights!” meets their goal, they’ll jump on it, even if it might contradict other things… because too many people are self-serving instead of principled.
Somehow I felt that yes, this is right, but I couldn’t adequately word it in a proper, Constitutional way, if in fact there was one.
The Cato Institute Daily Podcast for September 19, 2011 featured David Kopel and discussed this very issue. It’s only 9 minutes long, but it discusses why yes in fact a system of national reciprocity is Constitutional and doesn’t step on state’s rights. In short, 14th amendment. But to better understand it, listen to the podcast.
Today is Constitution Day.
Do yourself a favor today: go read it.
Teach your children about it.
Tell your friends and co-workers.
Remind people what this country was founded upon.
|
(h/t to Alice Tripp @ TSRA)
What makes me libertarian is what makes me an atheist — I don’t know. If I don’t know, I don’t believe. I don’t know exactly how we got here, and I don’t think anyone else does, either. We have some of the pieces of the puzzle and we’ll get more, but I’m not going to use faith to fill in the gaps. I’m not going to believe things that TV hosts state without proof. I’ll wait for real evidence and then I’ll believe.
I’d say what makes me an agnostic is that I don’t know… atheist tends to mean you know there are no gods, but there are varying shades in the spectrum, even amongst the theists.
But, that’s not the thrust of Jillette’s point. This is:
It’s amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness.
People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered, and if we’re compassionate we’ll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint.
People try to argue that government isn’t really force. You believe that? Try not paying your taxes. (This is only a thought experiment — suggesting on CNN.com that someone not pay his or her taxes is probably a federal offense, and I’m a nut, but I’m not crazy.). When they come to get you for not paying your taxes, try not going to court. Guns will be drawn. Government is force — literally, not figuratively.
Many people will use this terrible tragedy as an excuse to put through a political agenda other than my own. This tawdry abuse of human suffering for political gain sickens me to the core of my being. Those people who have different political views from me ought to be ashamed of themselves for thinking of cheap partisan point-scoring at a time like this. In any case, what this tragedy really shows us is that, so far from putting into practice political views other than my own, it is precisely my political agenda which ought to be advanced.
Not only are my political views vindicated by this terrible tragedy, but also the status of my profession. Furthermore, it is only in the context of a national and international tragedy like this that we are reminded of the very special status of my hobby, and its particular claim to legislative protection. My religious and spiritual views also have much to teach us about the appropriate reaction to these truly terrible events.
Countries which I like seem to never suffer such tragedies, while countries which, for one reason or another, I dislike, suffer them all the time. The one common factor which seems to explain this has to do with my political views, and it suggests that my political views should be implemented as a matter of urgency, even though they are, as a matter of fact, not implemented in the countries which I like.
Of course the [insert tragedy here] are a uniquely tragic event, and it is vital that we never lose sight of the human tragedy involved. But we must also not lose sight of the fact that I am right on every significant moral and political issue, and everybody ought to agree with me. Please, I ask you as fellow human beings, vote for the political party which I support, and ask your legislators to support policies endorsed by me, as a matter of urgency.
Taken from here, and the original appears to be here. I modified it slightly, removing “World Trade Center attacks” in place of “[insert tragedy here]”.
It’s a well-written piece and it’s exactly what goes on every time some sort of tragedy happens. The latest is the bombing and shooting in Norway.
Being as there are guns involved, it perks my interest a little more. As expected, those that wish to ban guns aren’t even waiting until the dead are buried before they work to dance about with their political agendas. And as expected, the pro gun people are pointing out how the gun-banners are being disgusting political opportunists. But I also see the pro gun people making comments like “and if their gun laws were better” or “if they had concealed carry”… and frankly folks, you’re doing the same thing, working to push your political agenda. But of course, we never see it that way because we’re fighting for the greater good, blah blah blah.
My point?
We cannot use every tragedy as justification to push politics. Take this line of reasoning to the logical extreme and it will destroy the very civilization that this short-sighted behavior claims to preserve.
Also, if you find it reprehensible to use tragedy to push politics, make sure you’re not being a hypocrite.
I’ve thought a lot about the turning point of the situation — the fact that one of them thought that I might have a gun. None of them said, “There’s a law against antigay hate crimes!” That wasn’t the deterrent. It was the possibility that I might have had a gun that saved my life Friday night.
Jimmy LaSalvia is gay. He was attacked by 8 thugs for being, as they called him, a “fucking faggot”. Laws, restraining orders, police, none of that did any good to prevent this assault from happening. The only thing that kept Jimmy alive and unharmed was the fact his attackers thought he had a gun. Full story. (h/t Cato)
While there are exceptions (Jimmy himself being one of them), in general you find the same people who want rights for minorities — like women and GLBT — to also hold anti-gun and gun-banning positions.
A weapon is a force equalizer, they allow the user to overcome disparity. When because of their minority status someone repressed and held in a lower and more vulnerable regard, why would those that claim to fight for their rights, that claim these groups deserve equal status, wish to deny them means to overcome disparity?
If you want rights and equality for all, remember the right to life and dignity is the essential first step. There are those in this world that seek to deprive good people of those things — don’t be one of them.