Marissa's writings about individual rights, justice, neurodiversity, and being different from the norm
Another excellent post from the Firearms Policy Coalition:
View this post on Instagram
“What a sea change it would be for Americans to finally have some peace of mind, knowing that a dedicated government entity exists solely to protect their rights, not infringe upon them.”
The establishment of the Second Amendment Task Force is great news indeed. The federal government is actually working to protect our rights, rather than working to violate them. What a revolutionary concept.
A beautiful thing to see, and something that certainly wouldn’t have taken place under the Biden administration:
View this post on Instagram
Source here
Check out this post from the Firearms Policy Coalition:
View this post on Instagram
My reaction: So? Whether or not your abuser can get a gun is none of your business. Whether or not your abuser can carry a gun concealed is also none of your business. The only thing that is your business is that your abuser doesn’t harm you, and doesn’t contact you if you don’t want them to. And preventing these things is the whole purpose of a restraining order.
As long as a person is not harming you or contacting you against your wishes, the things that they do are none of your business. The objects that another person owns and/or carries are none of your business.
You have a right not to be harmed or contacted; you don’t have a right to prevent others from owning or carrying any object that they might potentially use to harm you. If you demand control over the objects that other people are allowed to own and/or carry, you are now the one who is harming others, and you are now the abuser.
As the FPC correctly points out: “You have a right to self-defense and the use of just force against unjust force. Period.”
View this post on Instagram
Or, you know, not, because it violates people’s fundamental rights.
Just a thought.
Somewhat old news by now, but I agree wholeheartedly with this post from the Firearms Policy Coalition:
View this post on Instagram
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.”
I couldn’t help but laugh out loud at this one. Beautiful work!
View this post on Instagram
Source here
Another post similar to yesterday’s, but with a message that is always worth repeating:
View this post on Instagram
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.
The Firearms Policy Coalition reminds us of an important truth that is always worth pointing out:
View this post on Instagram
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.”
View this post on Instagram
View this post on Instagram