Author: Marissa

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_borderThe condescending, stuck-up attitude of Gavin Newsom

Posted on by Marissa

I saw this post by Charlie Kirk a while back and was struck by the attitude that California Governor Gavin Newsom expresses in the third slide:

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk1776)

“You don’t believe in climate change. You are excused from this conversation.”

Excuse me? So because Trump doesn’t share the same beliefs as Newsom, he is “excused” from the conversation?

In other words, Newsom seems to be saying, only people with the same beliefs as him are allowed to participate in the conversation. Only people with the same beliefs as him are allowed to voice their opinions.

News flash: Gavin Newsom does not have the right to dictate who is allowed to participate in a conversation and who is not. He does not have the right to dictate which people are and are not allowed to voice their opinions.

I am so tired of these types of pompous, self-righteous, stuck-up, and condescending statements. People need to actually listen to those who are different from them, or at least respect those who are different from them, rather than mindlessly condemning and shaming them as Newsom does.

bookmark_borderPresident Trump at the Super Bowl

Posted on by Marissa

Somewhat old news by now, but President Trump became the first president to attend a Super Bowl. These pictures and videos brought a smile to my face:

 
 
 
 
 
View this post on Instagram
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A post shared by Fox News (@foxnews)

 
 
 
 
 
View this post on Instagram
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A post shared by Tea Party Patriots (@teapartypatriots)

bookmark_border“Soooo STUPID”

Posted on by Marissa

Defiant L’s captured this horrible tweet back from the times when the federal government was attempting to force all people to undergo a medical procedure:

 
 
 
 
 
View this post on Instagram
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

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

Even now, four years later, this tweet is infuriating.

Yes, protesting against a policy that forces people to undergo a medical procedure against their will is “soooo STUPID.” God forbid that people, you know, stand up for their fundamental rights. God forbid that people fight back against policies that are morally wrong. Can’t have that. Obviously, when something violates people’s rights and is blatantly immoral, people should just accept it and not make any attempt to fight back against it in any way. Obviously, forcing people to undergo a medical procedure against their will is perfectly fine.

Not.

The fact that somebody could think this way is incomprehensible to me. It is admirable and courageous that airline workers put their jobs on the line to stand up for their right to bodily autonomy. To look at this situation and call the airline workers’ actions “soooo STUPID” is despicable, idiotic, and insulting. Any person who thinks this way is truly stupid.

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_borderIncome tax is slavery

Posted on by Marissa

An excellent post:

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Cam Higby (@camhigby)

This post perfectly explains why income taxes are morally wrong, while tariffs are not. Income tax by its very nature involves taking money directly from people. Tariffs do not. It really is that simple.

Additionally, the point about income tax being slavery is both true and relevant to the statue genocide. The perpetrators of this genocide demand the obliteration of any historical figure who participated in slavery in any way, without realizing that many policies that they themselves actively support also constitute slavery. Slavery does not just mean black people in the South working on plantations. It means forced labor in all its forms, and if you condemn the former without condemning all other forms of slavery just as strongly, that makes you both racist and a hypocrite.

A commentor on the post astutely points out: “When your earnings are taxed, effectively confiscating the fruits of four months’ worth of your hard work, it equates to depriving you of four months of your life. Taxation, under any reasonable definition, can be likened to forced labor.”

bookmark_borderPhotos of the aftermath of the statue genocide

Posted on by Marissa

Judy Smith recently posted some photos of a drive down Monument Avenue in Richmond, Virginia. These photos are heartbreaking. The one thought that echoes in my mind when looking at images like these is: How could people possibly think that this is a good thing?

Where there once were beautiful statues, there is now nothingness. Where there once was a celebration of history, there is now meaninglessness, purposelessness, and emptiness. Where people who are different from the norm were once accepted, now we are shamed, condemned, attacked, viciously hurt, excluded. Where life was once worth living, now it is not.

“We hate you,” the city of Richmond says to me, as well as to all people who are different.

The city of Richmond, like so many other cities across the United States, was completely ruined. Deliberately. On purpose. People actually thought that this was a good thing to do. How? How could they think this? It is completely incomprehensible to me.

These images depict the sickening result of the statue genocide. Statues of Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Jeb Stuart, and Matthew Fontaine Maury are supposed to stand on this street, where now there are only vacant expanses of dirt. I will feel rage and grief at what happened to these statues for the rest of my life. I will never fully heal, as long as these hideous wounds remain in the landscape of our country. What happened to these statues was wrong. These statues, these historical figures, and the fact that what happened to them was wrong, must never be forgotten.

bookmark_borderThe difference between supporters and opponents of MAHA

Posted on by Marissa

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by MICHAEL BOSSTICK (@michaelbosstick)

The most important sentence in this post: “the ability to impose those same views on others.” The controversy about RFK (which shouldn’t exist, because everyone should unanimously support him) is a conflict between two groups, one of which believes that the products and services of big food, big pharma, and the medical industry are good for people’s health, and the other of which believes the opposite. But the biggest thing at issue here isn’t what is healthy and what is not. It’s whether individuals should be able to make their own decisions about their health. Not only do RFK / MAHA opponents blindly follow the recommendations of the medical industry, but they believe that everyone else should be forced to do so as well. While RFK / MAHA supporters believe that every person should be able to make their own decisions.

And that’s what makes RFK’s critics morally wrong. Even more problematic than their erroneous beliefs about what is healthy, is their erroneous belief that they have the right to impose their own beliefs on others. The fact that it is morally wrong to require people to undergo a medical procedure shouldn’t be even remotely controversial. The right of people to make their own medical decisions should not be political.