Tag: gun rights

bookmark_borderRestricting guns at polling places is not “good news”

Posted on by Marissa

Somewhat old news by now, but I agree wholeheartedly with this post from the Firearms Policy Coalition:

As FPC correctly points out, violating people’s rights is not “good news.”

Additionally, what is striking about Everytown’s post is that they equate the existence of guns with “armed intimidation.” They do realize that a person can possess a gun without using it to intimidate others, right? It’s almost as if it doesn’t occur to them that a person could just…exist. With a gun. Not using it to intimidate anyone. This shouldn’t be a revolutionary concept, but apparently, it is. Having a gun on your person is not the same thing as “armed intimidation.” Possessing a gun, in itself, does not intimidate anyone.

Furthermore, Everytown’s statement that “armed intimidation has no place in our democracy” is another example of the pompous, self-righteous, stuck-up, and condescending attitude that I discussed in an earlier post. What the heck is “our democracy,” anyway? Democracy is a form of government in which decisions are made based on what the majority of people prefer. There’s nothing positive about this. It allows the majority to violate the rights of unpopular minorities. Yet so many people speak of “our democracy” as if it’s something of supreme importance, something sacrosanct, something whose goodness is so obvious that it doesn’t need to be explained. To me, this is just another way of saying, only people like us matter. Only people who act like us, think like us, and live like us. No one else’s feelings, perspectives, viewpoints, or experiences matter. It’s “our” democracy, and everyone else can go to hell. We don’t like guns; therefore no one should be allowed to have them. Who cares about the fact that possessing a gun has no impact on anyone but yourself, and therefore isn’t anyone else’s business? As usual, the basic moral truth that people have a right to do anything that they want to, as long as it doesn’t harm others, is thrown out the window. To the worshippers of “our democracy,” only the majority’s perspective matters. If they don’t like something, then it should be banned. The rights of unpopular minorities – as well as the entire concept of people having rights, for that matter – are completely disregarded.

Enough about your democracy. Individual rights are what actually matter. And banning guns at polling places violates them. This is the opposite of “good news.”

bookmark_borderOur rights don’t come from government

Posted on by Marissa

Another post similar to yesterday’s, but with a message that is always worth repeating:

 
 
 
 
 
View this post on Instagram
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A post shared by Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy)

Banning something that does not, in itself, hurt anyone is morally wrong. And this is true regardless of who is in office, regardless of how people voted, and regardless of the thoroughness of the process.

bookmark_borderYour natural rights do not depend on majorities

Posted on by Marissa

The Firearms Policy Coalition reminds us of an important truth that is always worth pointing out:

The fact that an assault weapons ban is backed by a slim majority of U.S. adults is irrelevant. Banning something that does not, in itself, hurt anyone is morally wrong regardless of how many people support it. As FPC points out, rights do not depend on majorities. And as an astute commenter on their post points out, “I don’t recall seeing a ‘popular opinion exception’ clause anywhere in the Constitution.”

bookmark_borderThe idiocy of Martin Heinrich

Posted on by Marissa

“There’s no law enforcement application for a bump stock. There’s no military application for a bump stock. There’s no self-defense application for a bump stock. These devices are tailor-made for mass shootings. Ban them.” – Sen. Martin Heinrich

It is exasperating and exhausting to keep seeing statements like this. 

The non-aggression principle, the rule that determines objective right and wrong, states that people have the right to do anything they wish, as long as it does not violate the rights of anyone else. This means that, unless owning a bump stock violates the rights of someone else, each person has the right to own a bump stock. 

Does owning a bump stock violate anyone’s rights? No, it does not.

Does owning a bump stock, in and of itself, hurt anyone? No, it does not. 

Therefore, each person has the right to own a bump stock. It really is as simple as that. 

Why does Heinrich care about the fact that bump stocks (allegedly) have no law enforcement, military, or self-defense applications? Why does he think this fact is relevant to the question of whether or not bump stocks should be banned?

It isn’t.

There is no moral rule stating that if something has no application, then it should be banned. There is no requirement that something have an application in order to be allowed to exist. The only requirement is that the thing not violate the rights of others. Bump stocks meet that requirement. Therefore, people have a right to own them. They cannot be banned. 

Contrary to what Martin Heinrich is claiming, people are not required to prove to him that their possessions have an application in order to be allowed to own those possessions. 

Contrary to what Martin Heinrich is claiming, people do not have a right to do only those things that he has deemed useful or necessary. 

People have a right to do anything they wish, as long as it does not violate the rights of anyone else. That includes owning bump stocks. 

bookmark_borderOne of the dumbest tweets I’ve ever seen…

Posted on by Marissa

The below tweet by anti-civil-rights activist David Hogg is one of the dumbest I’ve ever seen:

 
 
 
 
 
View this post on Instagram
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A post shared by Defiant L’s (@defiant.ls)

Does Hogg actually believe that one does not need a license to kill humans? 

This is so obvious that it shouldn’t need to be stated, but in reality there is no available license that makes it legal for a person to kill other people. Killing other people, unless done in self-defense, is illegal. It’s difficult to believe that anyone, let alone an adult living in the US, wouldn’t know that. It’s utterly preposterous that David Hogg would believe that killing other people is legal, let alone that it is legal without requiring any type of license. 

I’m puzzled by how Hogg could possibly have come to hold such a ridiculous belief. Perhaps he is trying to make some sort of rhetorical point about how people, in his (incorrect) opinion, shouldn’t be allowed to own guns? Perhaps he is equating owning guns with killing people? To state another thing that is so obvious it shouldn’t even need to be stated, these two things are not the same, nor even close to being the same. Therefore it is false to equate them. 

Regardless of his motivation, all that Hogg is doing in this tweet is making a preposterous, blatantly factually false statement. And I just don’t get why on earth someone would make such a preposterous and blatantly factually false statement as this one.

bookmark_border“They don’t understand the enormity of the responsibility you’re taking…”

Posted on by Marissa

“They don’t understand the enormity of the responsibility you’re taking when you go out there and carry a gun in public.” – NJ Senate President Nick Scutari

(source here)

Actually, Nick, the only responsibility people are taking when they carry a gun in public is to not shoot anyone with it, other than in self-defense. That’s it. And I think pretty much every gun owner understands this concept.