Tag: guns

bookmark_borderThe immorality of Chris Murphy

Posted on by Marissa

I agree 100% with the following post from the Firearms Policy Coalition:

 
 
 
 
 
View this post on Instagram
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A post shared by Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy)

To implement a $4,709 tax on gun products is mean-spirited and despicable. By proposing doing so, Murphy demonstrates his aggressive bigotry and his contempt for people who are different from him. 

Sickeningly, the organization Brady United Against Gun Violence thanked Murphy “for introducing this critical amendment to strike the provision in the big UGLY bill that removed taxes on deadly silencers & other uniquely lethal weapons, and instead adjust taxes to reflect inflation today.”

First of all, Murphy’s amendment is not “critical” – it’s actually critical not to pass an amendment like Murphy’s because it violates people’s rights. Second, the bill in question is not “UGLY” as Brady nastily claims. It is called the Big, Beautiful Bill, and for the most part it lives up to that name. Third, taxes on silencers and other gun products should not be adjusted to reflect inflation. They should be eliminated, exactly as the provision in the Big, Beautiful Bill does, because people are not doing anything wrong by buying these products, and therefore should not be punished with an exorbitant tax for doing so.

Both Chris Murphy as an individual, and Brady as an organization, are dedicated to hurting people who are different from them, punishing people who have done nothing wrong, and violating people’s fundamental rights, They act as if hurting and punishing innocent people somehow gives them the moral high ground, when in reality that is the exact opposite of the truth. Seeing them sycophantically praise each other for their hurtful and mean-spirited actions is disgusting. It’s about time that these actions and words be called what they are: immoral.

bookmark_borderRespecting people’s fundamental rights is not “weak”

Posted on by Marissa
 
 
 
 
 
View this post on Instagram
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A post shared by Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy)

“A gunman from a state with weak gun laws”

As a commenter on the post wrote, “‘Weak gun laws’ you mean states that don’t infringe on the 2nd amendment.”

Yup. States that actually – gasp! – respect people’s fundamental rights. Can’t have that, apparently.

News flash, Governor Hochul: Respecting people’s fundamental rights is not “weak.”

It’s a basic moral obligation.

It’s basic human decency.

There’s nothing “strong” about punishing innocent people for the actions of others.

There’s nothing “strong” about violating people’s fundamental rights.

How about, when a person does something bad, we actually blame the person, rather than blaming the government for not violating the rights of all people in an attempt to prevent a person from doing something bad?

Just a thought.

bookmark_borderRespecting people’s fundamental rights is not a “race to the bottom”

Posted on by Marissa

A recent op-ed in Teen Vogue by professor of “women, gender, and sexuality studies” Caroline Light purported to “explain the dangers of so-called Constitutional carry laws.” The op-ed claims that “national reciprocity is a race to the bottom, forcing all of us into a deadly ‘guns everywhere’ dystopia.” (source here)

There are a few things that need to be pointed out:

First, it is irrelevant that there (allegedly) are “dangers” of Constitutional carry laws. Constitutional carry laws are necessary, because anything else violates people’s rights. And people’s rights must be respected, regardless of how much danger is involved in doing so. 

Second, Constitutional carry laws are, well, Constitutional carry laws. There is no need to use the term “so-called” to describe them.

Third, national reciprocity is by no means a race to the bottom. National reciprocity means that states would be required to actually respect people’s fundamental rights. To characterize this as a “race to the bottom” implies that respecting people’s fundamental rights is somehow bad. And this, of course, is the opposite of the truth. It shouldn’t even need to be stated, but respecting people’s fundamental rights is not a race to the bottom, but rather the exact opposite.

And fourth, yes, national reciprocity does “force” all states to actually respect people’s fundamental rights. I fail to see how this is a bad thing. Respecting people’s fundamental rights is a basic moral obligation, so all states should be forced to do this. What exactly is the problem here?

Fifth, it is irrelevant that national reciprocity would (allegedly) create a “deadly” situation. As I stated above, rights must be respected, regardless of how safe or dangerous it is to do so.

Sixth and finally, a nation in which people’s fundamental rights are respected is not a “dystopia.” To characterize it as such implies that respecting people’s fundamental rights is somehow bad. And as I stated above, that is the exact opposite of the truth. A nation in which people’s rights are respected would be the antithesis of a dystopia. A nation in which people’s rights are respected is exactly the type of nation that everyone should be working towards.

bookmark_border“A concealed carry mandate would overturn the will of voters…”

Posted on by Marissa

“In addition to being a major threat to public safety, a concealed carry mandate would overturn the will of voters everywhere and force states to allow people to ignore safety standards,” the Giffords anti-rights organization wrote in a recent social media post.

Wow. To force states to actually… respect people’s fundamental rights. How terrible. Contrary to what the people at Giffords seem to think, forcing states to respect people’s rights is a good thing. Respecting people’s rights is a basic moral obligation.

Additionally, it’s irrelevant that a concealed carry mandate would overturn the will of voters. Concealed carry is a fundamental right. If the will of voters is for people’s rights to be violated, then the voters are wrong, and they deserve to have their will overturned.

Finally, the claim that a concealed carry mandate would be a major threat to public safety is irrelevant as well. Concealed carry is a fundamental right, and respecting people’s rights is a basic moral obligation, regardless of the consequences for public health.

Individual rights must come first. Always. No matter what. That’s why they’re called rights.

bookmark_borderActually, guns *are* cool

Posted on by Marissa

The anti-rights organization, Brady: United Against Gun Violence, recently made a social media post which read: “It may seem like a small hand gesture, but when those who have a platform use even an imaginary firearm for celebration, it sends a message that guns are cool and fails to recognize their lethality or that they’re the #1 killer of kids. We can do better.”

My question for Brady: What exactly is wrong with sending the message that guns are cool? In my opinion, guns are cool. And judging by the comments on the post, many other people feel the same way. There is absolutely nothing wrong with thinking that guns are cool. People have a wide variety of different interests. Some people find Disney movies cool, some people find horses cool, some people find rap music cool, and some people find guns cool, to give just a few examples. There is absolutely nothing wrong with any of this. People have a right to like things, to be interested in things, and to find things cool. Guns are no exception to this.

Regarding the claim that using imaginary guns for celebration “fails to recognize their lethality”… I fail to see why this is a problem. First of all, guns arguably do not have any “lethality” at all, because it is the people who use guns who are responsible for any deaths that may occur, rather than the guns themselves. But even if one accepts the claim that guns possess lethality, this does not create any obligation for people to “recognize” this. As mentioned above, people have a right to like things. People are not obligated to actively recognize every negative aspect of the things that they like, every time those things are mentioned.

Regarding the claim that guns are “the #1 killer of kids”… this strikes me as ageist. If guns were the #1 killer of adults, would this somehow be less bad? Additionally, as mentioned above, one could make the argument that guns are not a killer of anything, because it is the people who use guns who are responsible for any deaths that may occur, rather than the guns themselves. 

In conclusion, it’s Brady that needs to do better. Criticizing people who have done nothing wrong is unacceptable. The people at Brady need to respect the full spectrum of human diversity, rather than criticizing and shaming people who have different likes and dislikes than they do. 

bookmark_borderExcellent article re: Second Amendment Task Force

Posted on by Marissa

Another excellent post from the Firearms Policy Coalition:

“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.

bookmark_border“You have a right to self-defense and the use of just force …”

Posted on by Marissa

Check out this post from the Firearms Policy Coalition:

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.”