rights – Random Acts of Gibberish

Remedial Practical Civics 100 Lesson 9: Rights, and abandonment thereof

“Why did he have to kill my boy?”

I don’t know how many times I’ve heard that, or similar themes after some vicious punk gets shot while committing armed robbery or burglary, or… it goes on and on.

“Why did he have to shoot my boy?”

“How else was he supposed to get money for school supplies?”

The answer is: Because you raised your son to be a violent thug who threatened people’s lives. You failed to instill even the basic knowledge that a sociopath has: that even if one doesn’t have a conscience or think something is wrong, others do and will hold you to it. You raised your boy to be a feral animal that had to be put down for the safety of everyone. It’s your fault; you might as well have pulled the trigger yourself.

But I watch these interviews, and it just gets worse. Almost never does the commiserating reporter note the slightest possibility that the punk deserved what he got, or wonder why the grieving relative has such odd notions. By omission, they endorse the belief that the goon wasn’t doing anything wrong, that theft and death threats are acceptable.

Humans are predators. In order to interact socially, we accepted the concept of rights, just so we aren’t at each other throats all the time. Maybe God gave us those rights. Maybe we just developed them ourselves by trial and error over millennia, out of enlightened self interest. The how doesn’t matter on a day-to-day practical basis.

We accept that everyone who isn’t threatening has the right to life.

We accept that everyone has the right to keep their property.

We accept that everyone has the right to live their lives as they see fit, so long as they don’t threaten the first two.

That is what makes us people, and not just a smarter animal.

So what does that say about a thug who believes stealing things at gunpoint is just a good way to get school supplies? What does it say about mommy dearest who raised that creature to think that way, and thinks that way herself?

But this isn’t really about freelance redistributionists.

What does it say about those who would impose a communist economy based on “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”?

“Nice potatoes you grew. I’ll take those because you don’t need them, and I do.”

What does it say about those who effectively take your money by inflating the currency supply such that your dollar bill no longer buys what it did?

What does it say about the Green New Deal proponents who would take your home, your job, your food, your thoughts, and tell you where to live — and how — what job to work at, and what food to eat? What does it say about Modern Monetary Theorists who would take your labor by paying you with newly printed currency, and then “controlling” inflation by taxing it all back before it can be spent.

What does it say about “protesters” rioters, looters, vandals who steal and damage property. Who steal others’ very livelihood by preventing commerce? Who damage vehicles and assault drivers for merely wanting to pass through to go about their business? Who would take lives by blocking fire trucks and ambulances?

Aren’t these humanoid entities who have rejected the very principles that make us people?

If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in my tip jar. I could really use the money, what with ISP bills, rabbit feed, and general life expenses.Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)

TinMan on Twitter thinks I work for firearms/ammunition manufacturers, since that’s the only possible reason I could defend constitutionally protect human/civil rights.

All of you fuckers are acting on behalf of manufacturers. People don’t need bumpstocks but if they don’t have them they’ll use less ammo. Bottom line hit. Rats.

I wish they’d pay me. My “income,” such as it is, is insufficient to even paying my ISP bill.

TinMan objects to bump-fire stocks, and professes to believe that only an industry shill would think banning them is a bad idea. In hopes that he was merely uneducated on the subject, I provided a collection of explanatory links.

He either ignored it.

Rather than futilely attempt to make my points in a flurry of abbreviated-to-a-state-of-nonsense, I’ll respond here, and tweet the link to him.

Ammunition and bumpstocks advocacy is not Human Rights. Play it how you want.

But the possession and responsible use is, as explained in the Bill of Rights, and elaborated on by courts all the way up to and including SCOTUS.

But, as TinHead would have know if he’d read and attempted to comprehend the source links I gave him, the issue isn’t bump-fire stocks, ammunition or even semi-automatic firearms. It is rights. And sanity.

TL;DR, TinBrain: By fiat, Trump changed law written by Congress to arbitrarily ban something. It was bump-fire stocks this time. Maybe next time it will be designating the Democratic National Committee a terrorist organization.

In the case of bump-fire stocks, he did it by shifting the Congressionally mandated definition of “function of the trigger” to finger. Fingers are now triggers.

What’s worse, if you aren’t moving your finger, it’s an automatic trigger, which under current ATF rules makes your finger a machinegun.

If Trump can declare, without legislation, your finger to be a machinegun, he can declare Tesla electric cars to be main battle tanks (but I don’t want to give Musk any more weird ideas).

If this precedent stands, there is nothing a president cannot do by fiat, no matter how irrational. He can declare anything to be anything else. Ban anything. (And for the Republicans out there: Kamala Harris is already promising to use Trump’s bump-fire precedent to impose more gun control by fiat.)

Hmm… Let’s say Trump doesn’t like GM closing plants and moving jobs out of the country. He declares GM to be a government agency and takes over. (Or Kamala Harris similarly nationalizes everything to impose the Green Raw Deal.)

Or he might redefine “particulate emissions” to be “fairy dust” and gut federal pollution standards. Or a Dem president might declare plant food to be a world-destroying poisonous ga… oh. Wait. A Dem president already did that.

And it’s very clear that you use the term “human rights” in the most flagrant way possible.

I use “human/civil rights” in a manner consistent with the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, centuries of jurisprudence, and sanity.

For instance, the Declaration of Independence mentions a right to “life.” That implies a right to protect one’s life. Which in turn implies a right to defense, security as mentioned in the Bill of Rights (please note that in HELLER SCOTUS stated that outright). Firearms are an effective means of self defense.

Why do you need to fire any more rapidly than a current semi-auto or full auto weapon allows you to? For.. Fun? Do you need not only to shoot but eviscerate your deer? Is it not sensible that people are protected from this type of weapon? WTF do you want???

Tinny is still stuck on OMG! Shoot fast! Who needs to shoot fast?! Still hasn’t caught up the whole rights and reality thing.

And apparently he thinks bump-fire stocks not only allow you to fire faster than a semi-auto (they don’t; that is physically impossible, and is another part of the precedent of lying), but faster than an actual machinegun.

Perhaps — as I sarcastically suggested — he is a paid Bloomberg shill.

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: