Tag: individual rights

bookmark_border“Twenty-five million Americans…”

Posted on by Marissa
 
 
 
 
 
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_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_borderThe percentage of people who favor assault weapons bans… is irrelevant

Posted on by Marissa

A recent article in The Hill, about the reintroduction of an assault weapons ban in the Senate, states that:

“A November Gallup poll showed that 52 percent of Americans said they favor a ban on assault weapons, although higher percentages of Americans supported the idea in the past. Overall, 56 percent of Americans think gun control laws should be more strict.” (source here)

Just a reminder that the percentage of people who favor assault weapons bans is irrelevant. How popular or unpopular something is, has nothing to do with whether it is good or bad. Assault weapons bans violate people’s rights; therefore they are bad and should not be enacted, regardless of what percentage of the population supports them.

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_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.”

bookmark_borderTrump signs executive order withholding funds from schools that require covid vaccine

Posted on by Marissa

On February 15, President Trump signed what is perhaps his most awesome executive order yet. It withholds federal funds from schools that force their students to receive the covid vaccine.

According to the text of the order on the White House website:

“It is the policy of my Administration that discretionary Federal funds should not be used to directly or indirectly support or subsidize an educational service agency, State educational agency, local educational agency, elementary school, secondary school, or institution of higher education that requires students to have received a COVID-19 vaccination to attend any in-person education program.”

Trump’s order correctly points out that people should be “empowered with accurate data” and “left free to make their own decisions accordingly,” and that “threatening to shut them out of an education is an intolerable infringement on personal freedom.”

This really shouldn’t be a revolutionary concept. The right to make medical decisions about one’s body is the most fundamental right that there is. And vaccine mandates violate this right. It’s completely unacceptable for any school, employer, or organization to require a medical procedure.

With this executive order, Trump has decided that the federal government will step in and defend people’s rights from schools that would violate them. This is exactly what the federal government should be doing. In fact, it’s what the federal government should have been doing all along.

Despicably, the Biden administration attempted to use the power of OSHA – the Occupational Safety and Health Administration – to force all companies with 100 or more employees to implement vaccine mandates, thereby violating the rights of their employees. This is the literal opposite of what the government should have done. The government should have banned companies from violating the rights of their employees, not required it. Now, under the Trump administration, the government is moving in the direction of what it should have been doing all along. It is punishing institutions that violate people’s rights, thereby providing a deterrent from doing so.

I can’t think of a more important or worthy use of the power of the federal government, than to enforce people’s rights to bodily autonomy. So thank you, President Trump, for standing up for the fundamental right to decline medical intervention.