Rather than infringe on law-abiding peoples' rights, the Government should severely punish those who initiate force. But then, that makes too much sense.
The Statist mind believes that it is much better to try and eliminate all possible danger, no matter what the cost to law-abiding folks. The Nanny Syndrome involves a belief that the safety and nourishment of "society" trumps any individual right that gets in the way of that lofty goal. Unalienable individual rights?...forget them if they get in the way. The Constitution?...forget it if it gets in the way. Common law precedence [which was: an individual basically is free to do anything as long as that action does not infringe on the rights or property of others]?...forget it. The "good of society" is the greatest good. Some of us think not; we believe that freedom of the individual is the greatest good---as long as that individual does not initiate force or fraud. [If the person does initiate force or fraud, then legally punish that individual severely; don't take away the rights of law-abiding people.]
Statist thinking is that government must "take care of" people, because the world is dangerous and (most of all) unfair. The cost of trying to make the world "fair" is staggering---loss of individuality, loss of freedom, and loss of income on an unprecedented scale. Government not only taxes us to an unnecessary degree, but often charges an additional fee for its "services".
Society is not an organism...it has no rights; it is made up of individuals who have unalienable rights that have nothing whatsoever to do with any government anywhere. Unalienable rights are not the same as "civil rights"; the latter are granted by statute.
http://www.originalintent.org/edu/14thamend.php
Even requirements for gun permits are infringements on the unalienable right to self-defense possessed by law-abiding people. Furthermore, the permit requirement often is economically discriminatory; a permit in some places can cost as much as $150.
A great myth surrounding gun control has spread in this country: that a lack of gun control increases crime. Not true at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyoLuTjguJA
The Supreme Court decision on this issue should prove interesting; it is due sometime between April and July.
3 comments:
I recommend checking out:
http://www.gunowners.org/
who seem to actually want to defend the 2nd Amendment, unlike the NRA.
Thanks very much.
Here's one that may interest you (if you haven't seen it already):
http://www.opencarry.org/
:)
The Statist way of thinking is that no citizen can be trusted to be responsible for themselves, because not all citizens can be trusted to be responsible for themselves. They have a patrician mentality.
For them the state should be responsible for the citizen and in order to be responsible they need control. The citizen is their ward, their peasantry to control and dispose of as they will.
They want control over how much and what the individual eats and drinks and much else that is none of their business on the basis that unhealthy or overweight individuals are a drain on the state - Especially once they introduce universal compulsory state healthcare funded by taxation.
They regulate what you can and can’t do because they believe the individual can’t be relied upon to be able to make their own risk assessment.
Post a Comment