gogodawgs
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Very well written, not what I expected from the PI......
(by the way, I own two Volvo's and two Mustang's and 20 or so firearms)
http://blog.seattlepi.com/jacklewis/archives/194561.asp
NO, YOU CAN'T HAVE MY RIGHTS
I'M STILL USING THEM.
--Popular bumper sticker in Seattle
Inconveniently for our government, we require it to at least masquerade as "of the people, by the people, for the people" as Pres. Lincoln gracefully put it. Happily for politicians, that hurdle is set smirkingly low for the fear-mongering sociopaths we prefer to elect. There's nothing like promoting a culture of fear to breed enthusiasm for restricting the rights of others.
We're supposed to fear jihadist terrorists imported to Kansas from Gitmo, and forget that we imported them to Gitmo in the first place. We don't need no stinkin' trial. String 'em up and sell their kidneys on eBay!
We're supposed to fear the destruction of marriage if we "give" gay adults marital rights equivalent to adults who are not gay. Never mind that accusing gay marriage of undermining straight marriage is the logical equivalent of accusing the Winter Olympics of destroying the Summer Olympics. You know, it's not like that biathlete was suddenly going to start throwing the hammer.
Thomas Jefferson remarked, "When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." So surely I'm not asking you to fear your government, thus running the risk (in the finest tradition of blaming the victim, tongue firmly welded to my zygomatic arch) of engendering tyranny thereby.
Still I'm curious, in the wake of recent attempts by state Representatives Adam Kline (D-Seattle), Jeanne Kohl-Welles (D-Seattle) and Ross Hunter (D-Medina) to ban "assault weapons" and Seattle's Mayor Mike McGinn to restrict citizen possession of firearms, how we all became so well-trained to fear each other.
Are you more afraid of your neighbor, the police, or ruling-class efforts to abridge rights enumerated in your state and federal constitutions?
I've owned guns since I was a child. Are you afraid of me?
Of course, guns are dangerous -- far less so than cars, but certainly dangerous and purposefully so. That's why your government owns millions of them: they are useful in applying directed force, whereas nuclear bombs are just really messy.
The relevant civil rights question seems to be whether you want the biggest gun owner and most lethal weapon-using entity in today's world to decide whether you can be trusted to own a shootin' iron.
The CDC reports that .01036 percent of U.S. residents were killed by civilian gunfire in 2006, the most recent year for which data is available. That figure includes homicide, suicide and accident.
What percentage of our body politic was killed by the gunfire of police, FBI, BATF et al that year? That data is rather more closely held, and I challenge you to find a reliable number.
As to how many human beings were killed by the assembled might of our Department of Defense in its global operations, I submit to you that while nobody really knows, a lot of Afghanis and Iraqis are clinging to their guns and Qur'ans.
Few of the standard arguments against personal gun ownership stand up under scrutiny. Sure, nobody needs a gun (at least, we certainly hope not), but nobody needs a Beanie Baby, either. Or a shot of booze, or artificial boobs, or a floating house. Not a quality supporting argument here in the "land of the free," I think.
And of course nobody needs an "assault rifle," which apparently is defined as anything that is black, military-themed or scary in any way. Never mind all those deer that were harvested by the Greatest Generation with sporterized military rifles liberated from the armories of World War II. Many times more people are murdered each year with hands, feet and expedient bludgeons than with "assault rifles."
Personally, I think Volvos are scary (have you seen how Volvo drivers perform under pressure?), but an outright ban on Swedish cars would be pushing it.
Outlawing destructive behaviors? I'm all for it. But arresting a sport shooter or off-duty security guard for carrying a gun makes as much sense as arresting a watchmaker for owning burglary tools. It's criminalizing a presumed intent based on apparent capability. It's legislating against unprovable ideation, "just in case."
Outlawing weapons because they're dangerous? Please... All the best things in life are dangerous, starting with the human beings around you.
Self defense is a fundamental human right. The safety and privacy of your home is a fundamental human right. We might do well to remember that police are capable of providing neither -- as is true of all rights. As agents of the state, police enforce laws that are made by politicians.
The state cannot "grant" rights. It's a Boolean: rights are either intrinsic to human beings, or they're not rights at all. They're simply privileges, granted or revoked by benevolent leaders at their whim.
To the extent that we allow it, the state abridges and restricts our rights in order to assure (not ensure) social stability. Since the state possesses no rights of its own, it cannot properly be said to defend them. Rights can only be defended by the people who possess them.
Sadly, we citizens often fail to defend the rights we're not using right now. Groups demanding unpopular rights are marginalized, despised, laughed at and hounded.
Imagine for a moment the courage it would require to throw a festive gay rights parade in a small town in northern Idaho, or even to walk hand-in-hand through the park with your homosexual partner. Now think about holding a polite gun show in a rented hall on Capitol Hill, or even walking through the park with a legally owned, permitted weapon.
Of course, after Kyle Huff decided to bring guns to the party and killed half a dozen people at a Capitol Hill rave, sensitivities might be a bit tenderized there. Still, demonizing law-abiding gun owners on Kyle Huff's account is precisely as fair as demonizing the gay and BDSM communities based on Jeffrey Dahmer's psychopathic excesses.
Outlying groups who took up arms when their rights and persons were bruised by society and the state include the rebellious founders of this country, Industrial Workers of the World, and the Black Panthers. Even Mohandas K. Ghandi wrote in his autobiography, "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
You may feel that comparing gun rights activism with other forms of social activism is invidious, but the Pink Pistols don't seem to share your PC discomfort. Their rallying cry is "Armed Gays Don't Get Bashed," and their slogan is "Pick On Someone Your Own Caliber."
There are no rights that we vest more or less than our other rights; no one right that is more precious than another. The populace's right to self-arm is ancient, absolute and specifically enshrined in your very own federal Bill of Rights, and again in the Constitution of the State of Washington.
Those who wish to quibble at language and nibble at the edges of my right to keep and bear arms may expect to be referred to another trenchant slogan from the gay rights movement -- "How About We Vote On YOUR Rights?" -- or one adapted from abortion rights activists.
Don't like guns? Don't buy one.
Very well written, not what I expected from the PI......
(by the way, I own two Volvo's and two Mustang's and 20 or so firearms)
http://blog.seattlepi.com/jacklewis/archives/194561.asp
NO, YOU CAN'T HAVE MY RIGHTS
I'M STILL USING THEM.
--Popular bumper sticker in Seattle
Inconveniently for our government, we require it to at least masquerade as "of the people, by the people, for the people" as Pres. Lincoln gracefully put it. Happily for politicians, that hurdle is set smirkingly low for the fear-mongering sociopaths we prefer to elect. There's nothing like promoting a culture of fear to breed enthusiasm for restricting the rights of others.
We're supposed to fear jihadist terrorists imported to Kansas from Gitmo, and forget that we imported them to Gitmo in the first place. We don't need no stinkin' trial. String 'em up and sell their kidneys on eBay!
We're supposed to fear the destruction of marriage if we "give" gay adults marital rights equivalent to adults who are not gay. Never mind that accusing gay marriage of undermining straight marriage is the logical equivalent of accusing the Winter Olympics of destroying the Summer Olympics. You know, it's not like that biathlete was suddenly going to start throwing the hammer.
Thomas Jefferson remarked, "When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." So surely I'm not asking you to fear your government, thus running the risk (in the finest tradition of blaming the victim, tongue firmly welded to my zygomatic arch) of engendering tyranny thereby.
Still I'm curious, in the wake of recent attempts by state Representatives Adam Kline (D-Seattle), Jeanne Kohl-Welles (D-Seattle) and Ross Hunter (D-Medina) to ban "assault weapons" and Seattle's Mayor Mike McGinn to restrict citizen possession of firearms, how we all became so well-trained to fear each other.
Are you more afraid of your neighbor, the police, or ruling-class efforts to abridge rights enumerated in your state and federal constitutions?
I've owned guns since I was a child. Are you afraid of me?
Of course, guns are dangerous -- far less so than cars, but certainly dangerous and purposefully so. That's why your government owns millions of them: they are useful in applying directed force, whereas nuclear bombs are just really messy.
The relevant civil rights question seems to be whether you want the biggest gun owner and most lethal weapon-using entity in today's world to decide whether you can be trusted to own a shootin' iron.
The CDC reports that .01036 percent of U.S. residents were killed by civilian gunfire in 2006, the most recent year for which data is available. That figure includes homicide, suicide and accident.
What percentage of our body politic was killed by the gunfire of police, FBI, BATF et al that year? That data is rather more closely held, and I challenge you to find a reliable number.
As to how many human beings were killed by the assembled might of our Department of Defense in its global operations, I submit to you that while nobody really knows, a lot of Afghanis and Iraqis are clinging to their guns and Qur'ans.
Few of the standard arguments against personal gun ownership stand up under scrutiny. Sure, nobody needs a gun (at least, we certainly hope not), but nobody needs a Beanie Baby, either. Or a shot of booze, or artificial boobs, or a floating house. Not a quality supporting argument here in the "land of the free," I think.
And of course nobody needs an "assault rifle," which apparently is defined as anything that is black, military-themed or scary in any way. Never mind all those deer that were harvested by the Greatest Generation with sporterized military rifles liberated from the armories of World War II. Many times more people are murdered each year with hands, feet and expedient bludgeons than with "assault rifles."
Personally, I think Volvos are scary (have you seen how Volvo drivers perform under pressure?), but an outright ban on Swedish cars would be pushing it.
Outlawing destructive behaviors? I'm all for it. But arresting a sport shooter or off-duty security guard for carrying a gun makes as much sense as arresting a watchmaker for owning burglary tools. It's criminalizing a presumed intent based on apparent capability. It's legislating against unprovable ideation, "just in case."
Outlawing weapons because they're dangerous? Please... All the best things in life are dangerous, starting with the human beings around you.
Self defense is a fundamental human right. The safety and privacy of your home is a fundamental human right. We might do well to remember that police are capable of providing neither -- as is true of all rights. As agents of the state, police enforce laws that are made by politicians.
The state cannot "grant" rights. It's a Boolean: rights are either intrinsic to human beings, or they're not rights at all. They're simply privileges, granted or revoked by benevolent leaders at their whim.
To the extent that we allow it, the state abridges and restricts our rights in order to assure (not ensure) social stability. Since the state possesses no rights of its own, it cannot properly be said to defend them. Rights can only be defended by the people who possess them.
Sadly, we citizens often fail to defend the rights we're not using right now. Groups demanding unpopular rights are marginalized, despised, laughed at and hounded.
Imagine for a moment the courage it would require to throw a festive gay rights parade in a small town in northern Idaho, or even to walk hand-in-hand through the park with your homosexual partner. Now think about holding a polite gun show in a rented hall on Capitol Hill, or even walking through the park with a legally owned, permitted weapon.
Of course, after Kyle Huff decided to bring guns to the party and killed half a dozen people at a Capitol Hill rave, sensitivities might be a bit tenderized there. Still, demonizing law-abiding gun owners on Kyle Huff's account is precisely as fair as demonizing the gay and BDSM communities based on Jeffrey Dahmer's psychopathic excesses.
Outlying groups who took up arms when their rights and persons were bruised by society and the state include the rebellious founders of this country, Industrial Workers of the World, and the Black Panthers. Even Mohandas K. Ghandi wrote in his autobiography, "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
You may feel that comparing gun rights activism with other forms of social activism is invidious, but the Pink Pistols don't seem to share your PC discomfort. Their rallying cry is "Armed Gays Don't Get Bashed," and their slogan is "Pick On Someone Your Own Caliber."
There are no rights that we vest more or less than our other rights; no one right that is more precious than another. The populace's right to self-arm is ancient, absolute and specifically enshrined in your very own federal Bill of Rights, and again in the Constitution of the State of Washington.
Those who wish to quibble at language and nibble at the edges of my right to keep and bear arms may expect to be referred to another trenchant slogan from the gay rights movement -- "How About We Vote On YOUR Rights?" -- or one adapted from abortion rights activists.
Don't like guns? Don't buy one.