bookmark_border“Twenty-five million Americans…”

 
 
 
 
 
View this post on Instagram
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A post shared by Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy)

Um, yes. And that is bad, how?

If force or violence is justified to advance an important political objective, that means that killing a person is OK if doing so is necessary to advance the political objective. I don’t get why it’s considered bad or surprising that someone who believes that violence is necessary would actually be willing to use it. And as the Firearms Policy Coalition points out, there absolutely are situations in which violence is justified to advance political objectives, with the Revolutionary War being just one example.

FPC’s caption in the post is so important that I am reproducing it below:

“We believe that natural rights are not granted by governments, a byproduct of majority consensus or majoritarian process, or mere privileges conferred by any government, group, or creation of man.”

(emphasis added)

bookmark_border“They plan to cut over 500 ATF inspectors…”

… and this is bad, how?

A few hundred ATF inspectors sounds like a lot. I also find it hard to believe that the ATF is underfunded, considering that it arguably shouldn’t exist at all, and therefore any funding is a higher amount than what there should be. Additionally, I don’t really get why it’s a bad thing that the ATF cuts will “make us all less safe.” I am tired of our society’s obsession with safety at all costs. What truly matters is not safety, but individual rights. Cutting 500 ATF inspectors sounds like a good thing to me.

bookmark_borderA reminder from Ron Paul

Source here

This is exactly why democracy, in and of itself, is not something positive. A form of government in which policies are made based on the majority’s preferences, is not a good thing, because the majority could just as easily be wrong in their preferences, as they could be right. If the majority prefers, for example, that a minority’s rights be violated, then the majority would be wrong, and democracy would allow this wrong preference to be implemented as law. This is why the founders (correctly) did not cherish democracy. Individual rights must come first, always.

As the Firearms Policy Coalition correctly points out, individual rights must never be up for a discussion or a vote.

And as an astute commenter pointed out: “This is why libs love democracy so much because they will vote away your rights. We’re a constitutional republic safeguarded by individual liberty.”

bookmark_borderRestricting guns at polling places is not “good news”

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

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.