Tag: individual rights

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_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_borderPassing the responsibility of your health onto others is selfish

Posted on by Marissa

An old post that I came across recently, but the philosophical arguments that it makes are still relevant and likely always will be:

I see a whole lot of this: ‘People who don’t wear masks are selfish and putting everyone else in danger.’
Just no. Stop.
Do you know what’s selfish? Passing off responsibility for YOUR health to everyone else around you. It doesn’t work that way.

Read the post in its entirety here.

bookmark_border“Our Out-of-Control Federal Law Enforcement Agencies” by Ryan Cleckner

Posted on by Marissa

The latest issue of Imprimis, a publication by Hillsdale College, was so disturbing that I feel the need to share it. It’s not the viewpoint expressed by lawyer and firearms industry executive Ryan Cleckner that is disturbing – that is both eloquently expressed and completely correct – but rather the actions of federal law enforcement agencies that he describes. 

Cleckner describes how federal agencies such as the ATF and FBI murdered people, destroyed their homes, obliterated their fundamental rights and dignity, and overall acted like thugs.

In one case, the ATF determined that airport executive Bryan Malinowski was required to have a license, which he didn’t have, for his gun collecting hobby. Instead of informing him of this, they decided to violate his privacy rights by placing a GPS tracker on his car, and then to conduct a pre-dawn raid on his home, during which they brought ten vehicles filled with agents in SWAT gear, cut the power to his house, and killed him.

In another instance, a volunteer at an abortion clinic, Bruce Love, began to profanely harass a 12-year-old pro-life protestor. An argument took place during which the boy’s father, Mark Houck, pushed Love to the ground. Love pressed charges against Houck, despite the fact that Love is the one who deserves to have charges filed against him, because he initiated the conflict. Love’s bogus case was dismissed, but federal prosecutors subsequently decided to charge Houck with violating the FACE Act (prohibiting blocking access to abortion clinics). Two dozen FBI agents conducted a pre-dawn raid on his home, armed with SWAT gear and battering rams. Houck was arrested and chained to a table for 6 hours, despite the fact that Love is the person who deserves to be punished in this situation.

After reading this piece, I believe that law enforcement agencies should not be allowed to conduct pre-dawn raids, ever, for any reason. I also believe that all of the agents, prosecutors, and officials involved in the incidents that Cleckner describes should get the death penalty. (At the absolute least, they should be fired.) Their actions are truly, truly despicable. The incidents that Cleckner described make it clear, if anyone still had any doubts, that we live in a totalitarian country.  And this should not be acceptable to anyone.

As Cleckner notes, the agencies responsible for these atrocities respond to criticism by pointing out that their actions are “by the book.” If this is the case, then we need a new book. 

You can read Cleckner’s full article here.

bookmark_borderVictory for Ian Smith

Posted on by Marissa

I’m a bit late with this update, but Ian Smith, the brave gym owner in New Jersey who defied the oppressive stay-at-home orders back at the beginning of the Covid pandemic, has won a complete victory in court. All 80+ charges that were filed against him for the “crime” of re-opening his gym – including violation of a governor’s order, public nuisance, disturbing the peace, and operating without a license – were dismissed with prejudice.

Read Ian’s full statement in his Instagram post here and below:

 
 
 
 
 
View this post on Instagram
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A post shared by Ian Smith (@iansmithfitness)

Gateway Pundit covered the news, and Ian thanked them for accurately quoting him in this Instagram post.

 
 
 
 
 
View this post on Instagram
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A post shared by Ian Smith (@iansmithfitness)

As you can see, Ian has a unique personality and doesn’t pull any punches in his posts. Some people might criticize him for his combative style, but in my opinion he is 100% right. It is Ian Smith, and not Phil Murphy, who holds the moral high ground in this situation. Phil Murphy presumed that he had the right to dictate for other people what risks they should be allowed to take in their lives. While Ian Smith, on the other hand, stood up for the right of each person to make their own decision.

And he made a great observation in this post:

 
 
 
 
 
View this post on Instagram
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A post shared by Ian Smith (@iansmithfitness)

“The victory is for all of us. It’s a victory for sanity in an insane world. So as happy you are for us, celebrate for yourselves as well. The more of these small victories we get, the better the bigger picture gets for all of us.”

Truer words have never been said.

In my opinion, Ian Smith is nothing short of a hero. 

bookmark_borderMarriage is not “the very definition of freedom and liberty”

Posted on by Marissa

Rep. Nancy Mace recently wrote an opinion piece for Fox News in which she argued in favor of the Respect for Marriage Act. “The right to marry the person you love is the very definition of freedom and liberty,” Mace wrote.

I strongly disagree with this claim. There are numerous rights that are far more basic and fundamental than the ability to marry. To give a few examples:

  • The right to purchase, carry, own, and possess firearms and other weapons
  • The right to decide whether or not to get a medical procedure
  • The right to consume whatever substances one wishes, in whatever amounts one wishes
  • The right to spend one’s time the way one wishes
  • The right to move about freely
  • The right to keep one’s own money
  • The right to be free from searches of one’s person, possessions, and property
  • The right to privacy of one’s medical information
  • The right to privacy of one’s internet browsing activity
  • The right to privacy, period.

The very definition of freedom and liberty is the ability to live your life as you please. The activities most central to freedom and liberty are individual activities, not social ones or communal ones. In other words, the activities most central to freedom and liberty are activities that people do alone, or at least activities that do not require the involvement of other people in order to be meaningful or to make sense. And that is what the activities listed above have in common. The definition of freedom and liberty is the ability to do what one wishes to do, without interference from others.

There is definitely an argument to be made that people have a right to enter into whatever types of relationships they wish with other people. Items in this category include marriage, as well as freedom of association and freedom of assembly. But these types of freedoms are not as fundamental as the right to be free from interference, aggression, pressure, or coercion. Individual rights are the very definition of freedom and liberty.

It is angering that many on the left-hand side of the political spectrum (I place Rep. Mace into this category even though she is technically a Republican) place such a large degree of importance on freedoms that are related to sex, without seeming to place any importance whatsoever on other types of freedoms. People who subscribe to this way of thinking go on and on about abortion, contraception, marriage, and the ability to express oneself sexually and have one’s sexual identity respected. Ad nauseam, they insult and vilify Republicans for allegedly threatening to take away “our rights and freedoms.” Yet with regard to non-sex-related freedoms, the left is either apathetic or actively hostile (gun rights, the right to decline medical intervention, the right to move about freely, the right to keep one’s own money, and the right to medical privacy, to name just a few freedoms that the left has recently been crusading passionately against). To many politicians, it is apparently perfectly fine for people to be able to do whatever they want sex-wise, while at the same time having absolutely no freedom in any other areas of their lives. This obsession with sex is illogical and hypocritical. Sex is not the only aspect of life that matters – and for some people sex is not part of their lives at all! – so it is important that all freedoms and liberties be protected, and not only sex-related ones.

It is shameful that Congress is spending time and energy protecting the “right” to marry the person you love, while actual rights are under assault. The heart and soul of liberty – its very definition – consists of freedom from interference by other people. Until that most fundamental form of freedom is universally respected, unanimously agreed upon, and secured for everyone beyond the shadow of a doubt, it is hurtful and wrong to focus on the freedom to marry.