Countryboy JJ
Skyler the Weird
Rick Barton
Wiley Coyote
BooneCountyGirl
The Progressive Goal Of Unflavored Lives
Another nutcase left unattended and the leftists cry out for protection from guns, drunk drivers, high incomes, global warming and old age, among other things. Is government protection from baldness on the list?
How did we get here? We have a country which was established with the use of weapons. These weapons were owned by individuals and used to fight against their taxpayer-armed government. (Think Syria)
Due to the understanding of the relationship of government and men the founders wrote a constitution which enumerated certain things the government could do, ONLY those, then went further and listed rights of the people. Possession of firearms is one of those.
Today, hundreds of millions of weapons are owned by the people. These are usually not the weapons of the military or the police. The military and police possess high powered assault weapons to be used against enemies of the state; or in the case of the police, the citizenry. Yet the people are supposed to give up another of their possessions, their rights to a particular weapon to protect themselves from another nutcase.
Let me digress here. Not so long ago many of the nutcases were put away in ‘institutions’. Society was protected from them. Now, the do-gooders, the advocates, have forced government to turn the nutcases loose in society by closing the institutions and guess what, the nutcases do what nutcases to: harm others and themselves. So whose fault is it? Obviously not the people who worked to get the nutcases turned loose on society, but let us not address the real issues in this surge of limiting the right of taxpayers to own guns. Back to the main track.
What about the nutcases who work for the police? Who is going to protect us from them? Are we going to take their weapons away also? They shoot the wrong people on regular occasion. Who cries out to take their guns away?
Let us go further. This unhappy episode brings out the truth of many on the left. It is state control. Some advocate for a complete disarming of the citizenry. In their concern for the safety of people they argue against freedom itself. This then is the crux of the matter, freedom versus safety.
What is freedom except risk? Every day a free man gets up he is at risk of some happening beyond his control. It is the freedom to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, or a car without a seatbelt, or eat a hamburger cooked rare, or to run a business which might go bankrupt.
Take the risk away and you have no freedom. Government is there at every turn.
We are safe. To do what? Nothing. Oh, perhaps watch reality TV.
Ladies and gentlemen, we don’t get out of this alive. Risk is not a part of life, it is life. Those who would take your guns away would also stop you from living except the most unflavored life, not even vanilla. Unflavored. They want you stacked in apartments downtown, surrounded by buildings with a well-structured park to visit and pleasant food for your excitement, so long as the growing and transportation of the food doesn’t harm any animals or bugs.
Those who work to eliminate the constitution actually want your life. They want you to give up your right to choose; you must follow their rules, and have a life of no risk. My question is: will that make me live forever or will I still die?
Our founding fathers understood the penchant of some to use the power of government to control the people. They wrote a Constitution of enumerated powers for that reason. The right to keep and bear arms is not limited to the government, it is a right of the people by not being enumerated and then again by Amendment.
Don’t fool yourself, those who will take these rights will not stop until your entire life is unflavored.
I offer you, in closing, Jack London’s credo:
I would rather be ashes than dust!
I would rather that my spark should burn out in a brilliant blaze than it should be stifled by dry-rot.
I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.
The function of man is to live, not to exist.
I shall not waste my days trying to prolong them.
I shall use my time.
We need your help! If you like PunditHouse, please consider donating to us. Even $5 a month can make a difference!
Short URL: http://pundithouse.com/?p=12698
.Who are these folks who “want you to give up your right to choose” and “follow their rules”? Are these “do-gooders, the advocates,” who would “use the power of government to control the people” the same folks who want the state to decide who gets to marry whom? Oh yeah, different axe, same gore….
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
LOL – meant different ox same gore…:) (or is it goose v. gander….hmmm)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
+1
I cannot fathom the cognitive dissonance experienced by those people who wail about the state infringing on our rights and growing too big and then proudly vote in favor of a state amendment that outlaws the legal union of two consenting adults based on religious doctrine.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7 
0
Okay, good public policy is allowing any consensual arrangement between consenting adults ????? Let’s take a look at the Moslem world. Polygamy is accepted practice. Wealthy males take on multiple wives. Lower income males have on chance to find a mate. Very unhappy society. Nice environment for recruiting terrorists. Incest, polyandry, bestiality – features of humanity from time immoral, but extremely harmful to society. These are empirical facts. Just so happens this squares with Biblical admonitions. In my opinion this is further proof that God is exactly who he says he is, but most readers of this website fancy themselves the measure of all things so I’ll just just try to appeal to you on a humanistic, rational, level …….
Like or Dislike:
4 
3
Martin,
Anyone who says liberty from coercion can’t lead to the death of a society (through moral decay, etc.) is lying. However, given the choice of dying free or living under the rule of those who force me to live and do as they say, I choose to die free. But since you went there (the God card), so will I…
God gave you your soul, brain and body. Therefore, logic tells us that only you and God have a claim to your soul, brain, and body. Thus, under what assumption are you operating that God gave some other man or group of people a claim to your soul, brain, or body in terms of forcing you to do what he (or they) want without your consent? You do want you want to do, but don’t force me to do what you think is right. If I want to marry ten consensual women that is a contract between them and me. You, and the government, nor anyone else, have no claim to have a say in that. If God punishes the women and/or me for our behavior, we will pay enough of price in eternity that you don’t need to worry about it.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Martin,
Middle Easterners don’t become terrorists because of bestiality, they become terrorists because Westerners have been screwing around with them since WWI. Learn a little about how the UK, France and the US created artificial countries like Iraq and Syria while disenfranchising Kurds and embracing the Zionist* roadmap to displacement of the Palestinians long before Hitler rose to power.
* Zionism being one of several options considered for the resolution of the Jewish diaspora, others included Bundism and Territorialism.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Joe,
I can’t speak for the ME folks, but I know if another country sent its troops, black ops contractors, drones and “advisers” to the US and set up shop in my city while their citizens back home cheered them on, I’d be participating in some ‘blowback’ of my own. So yeah, I think these people hate for basically not leaving them alone.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Agreed, Tim. However, allow me this – there is no cognitive dissonance. They don’t think deeply enough or long enough to be affected by it. I see this across the political spectrum. The thing most Americans can’t get through their skulls is that a person can at the same time be against something morally and also against governmental enforcement of those morals. What this says to me is that that person is ultimately immoral themselves, as anyone who would condone or vote for using violence to enforce a moral code has no morals. And yes, all govco action is rooted in violence.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
A person doesn’t have to believe in any religion to be against gay marriage and if they are religious, they can have other reasons.
.
Blacks have overwhelmingly opposed gay marriage, many believe being gay is a lifestyle choice, as do other ethnic groups.
.
The NBJC (National Black Justice Coalition) report notes that blacks are “more likely than other groups to believe that homosexuality is wrong, that sexual orientation is a choice, and that sexual orientation can be changed.” Polls confirm this. In a 2003 Pew survey, 32 percent of whites said homosexuality was inborn, 15 percent said it was caused by upbringing, and 40 percent said it was a lifestyle preference. Latinos answered roughly the same way. But only 15 percent of blacks agreed that homosexuality was inborn; 58 percent said it was a lifestyle preference. A plurality of whites (45 to 39 percent) said a person’s homosexuality couldn’t change, but a two-to-one majority of blacks (58 to 30 percent) said it could.
.
The pattern persists in Pew’s 2006 survey. A plurality of whites said homosexuality was inborn, and a majority said it couldn’t be changed. A majority of blacks said that homosexuality was just how some people preferred to live and that it could be changed……Slate
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
BCG,
I am always bemused by the complaints of those who didn’t care for the results of the marriage amendment.
Do you know the reason the amendment was on the ballot?
Do you know what the amendment actually addressed?
Do you know what the results of the amendment are?
1. The amendment was because the radical advocates were using the courts in various states to have the courts force their worldview on others. So those who opposed that worldview made the attempt, successful as it were, to put their opinion in the constitution, making it less available to the courts for change. To reiterate, it was a response to the use of government force elsewhere. (they started it)
2. The amendment only kept the status quo, which is a historical and religious belief in a particular legal relationship. (The advocates wanted to use government to force change)
3. The results stop no one from choosing to live in any particular situation. So the right to choose still exists, as it has long done. What doesn’t exist is a right to legal sanction. (but for advocates, having that freedom is not good enough)
So what you seem to be referring to is, again, the liberal seeking of government to inflict itself into people’s lives, when most people don’t agree. But, at the same time, the freedom to choose how to live continues to exist, so your distorted complaint is just that. Additionally it is tiresome.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
What is tiresome and distorted to me is using the courts to fight someone else’s abuse of the courts to “solve” what is a historical and religious (meaning non-governmental) conversation. The answer to the use of government force is not more government force. Win or lose all this does is reinforce and affirm to govco that we (on both sides) are too stupid and lazy to figure things out on our own. Govco has no business in a historical or religious conversation, so a) the states should have rejected the radical advocates advances to begin with, and b) the proponents of traditional marriage should have resisted misusing government as a response.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Oh it’s TIRESOME to be shown to be a hypocrite over and over again, is it? For someone who has been married three times to say he has a lock on who should and should not be married is laughbable. Even more TIRESOME is the belief that it is acceptable to use the violent force of the state to back up your belief. These are NOT libertarian notions, and saying “they started it” is intellectual weakness. You either believe we should be free from government tyranny or you don’t. What is TIRESOME is BOTH the liberal and the “conservative” seeking to “inflict itself into peoples lives”. (what does that even mean?) Both government sanction AND prohibition is wrong as both can only be enforced through the confiscation of property and/or the violent force of the state.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
Yeah, I think she said, “HEAR ME ROARRRR, BITCHEZ!!!!!!!”
Shazam!
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
BCG Just to let you know, if the opportunity arises, I’ll get married again, and again. I’m shooting for 6 times. Serial monogamy, that’s my game. Libertarian notions??? Then, just to please you, should I change my registration to Republican? Been there, done that, ran for office. I will point out, you didn’t address the issues raised. For that matter, neither did Tim. If he thinks using the courts does not involve force, he is mistaken. Courts are part of government. Why does he seek solace there except for the final result which is enforcement of rules by government agent.
And saying they started it is Not intellectual weakness, it is a statement of fact. Ask Senator Rucho why it was brought up as an issue.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
As usual, you miss the point and fail to understand what Liberty means.I support your right to marry as many times as like, but, unlike you, I realize that your inability or unwillingness to maintain a marriage in no way impacts the longevity of my own, and in no way “inflicts” serial monogamy upon me. Marriage is just one of many tools used by the government to manipulate. TRUE libertarians believe in LIBERTY FOR ALL. and freedom from government manipulation in all its forms – don’t let your feelings about what is “moral” cloud your intellect. And Lewis while I don’t want a proposal (although you must be really good at those) I would like for us to “kiss and makeup” – whaddya say?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
I swear I think I need to get drunk on some fine Kentucky bourbon with BCG one time just for laughs. Say, BCG, are you a tin tulip or a steel magnolia? By the way, I’m married, happily so, first and last. That said, we can bring the spouses along too; I just wanna see if you walk the walk as well as you talk the talk!!!
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Actually, in the case of using courts to overturn marriage restrictions imposed on consenting gay couples, there is force used, but against the legislature that passed the restrictions. Courts tell the legislature and the government administrators that would enforce the law that by doing so they will be in violation and subject to the force of an outside government agency. In reality, the force was initiated against the gay couples by denying them the ability to form a contractual union subject to all of same rights and benefits available to hetero unions. Think, if one person in a gay union dies without a will and the widow(er) tries to retain the property in a state or locality that has outlawed gay marriage, that property will be forcibly removed from the survivor.
Going to the court to have the law struck down only threatens the use of force against government agents that try to enforce the struck down law.
Lewis, you cannot give me one example of how a court that removes the marriage restriction is using force against any citizen (exempting citizens acting as the the aforementioned enforcement agents and then only in their role as officials).
It is no different than someone going to the courts to overturn a law banning raw milk, outlawing medical marijuana or banning muslim face veils. When the court strikes down the law, there is no force used against any citizen. Nobody has taxes extracted or their own activities restricted. Nobody.
Gay marriage is a clear cut case where social conservatives just don’t see that they want to use the force of government to restrict the activities of others that they find offensive. Just because an unjust and unconstitutional law is already in place does not mean that using the courts to overturn it is the equivalent to adding a new law or imposing new restrictions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The fallacy in your argument in regards to A1 is that using courts to “legalize” gay marriage is somehow using force. Ending restrictions on unions between consenting adults is not using force, but ending the use of force by GovCo to regulate marriage. If a Black man used the courts to end forced segregation through Jim Crowe Laws, he has not “used force” but rather ended the use of force against him. A gay couple that wishes and end to unfair restrictions have in no way used force against hetero-couples, children ,society, churches etc. In. No. Way.
On the Other hand, if they went to court to force a wedding photographer to work for them or extract financial penalties if he/she refuses due to anti-gay marriage views, then they have used force to achieve their goals. The use of courts to undue government restrictions is actually one of ways the most libertarian of our Founders intended it to be used.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
I agree in general, but with the caveat that it is always a good thing when the courts are used to undo, end, or restrict GovCo or Government organizations. Think courts overturning illegal actions by government or striking down laws. this is a good thing. It is also exactly what is being done when gay couples go to court to end marriage restrictions/regulations placed on them by state and local governments. In that case, they are undoing
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
undue=undo (bleeping Mondays)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“tiresome and distorted to me is using the courts to fight someone else’s abuse of the courts”
Kayser,
I agree in general, but with the caveat that it is always a good thing when the courts are used to undo, end, or restrict GovCo or Government organizations. Think courts overturning illegal actions by government or striking down laws. this is a good thing. It is also exactly what is being done when gay couples go to court to end marriage restrictions/regulations placed on them by state and local governments. In that case, they are undoing government overreach.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Tim, I get what you’re saying but I think you’re comparing apples to oranges. If there is a law that says a person can’t use a public restroom then, yes, I agree using the courts to rectify that is removing force. But, if another law says that a shop owner MUST allow everyone to use his restroom, then that is the use of force. It’s a subtle distinction. But I think you also “got it” in terms of what I am talking about, as I am sure some in LGBT community would sue on the basis that a member of the clergy, etc., would refuse to perform their services based on anti-gay feelings. But again, I’m more about getting govco out of the marriage “business” altogether. What consenting adults want to do in their home or church is up to them.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Kayser,
I think we are on the same page, brother. Just semantic differences, I believe! I agree wholeheartedly on the what should be GovCo’s role in marriage – none (well, maybe record keeper, like in traditional western societies – ie A couple simply informs city hall they are now in a contractual union). In truth, marriage benefits and restrictions really discriminate against single people as well as LGBT. As my buddy Phil says: “The real problem is that GovCo gives extra benefits to married hetero couples. The solution is just to rescind those extra benefits. No new laws. No courts. Just contracts between consenting adults and their Churches (if so inclined).” It is actually ridiculous that Christians would want government to be involved in something that should be between a couple, their family, and their church.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Tim,
I can agree to all that. Though I don’t even think govco needs to be the record keeper. If some folks are concerned about inheritance, hospital visitation, benefits, etc., then some enterprising young man or woman will create a website where for $39 a year you can have your marriage record available on the web and recognized nationally. If you’re not concerned about such things, keep your money. Easy. And yes, I am all for rescinding the ‘special interest’ benefits married couples receive from govco (as well as the same for welfare queens and their not quite live-in baby daddys who help them game the system on the other side of the coin). It’s quite perverse when my friends and I sit around talking about how our wives and we would be better off getting divorced, sticking her in a trailer with the kids, and then shacking up.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There was gay marriage in early Christian times but as Juvenal noted “…such brides are infertile no matter what drugs they try or how much they are whipped in the Lupercalia. “
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Excellent as always Lewis. Couple of thoughts on being able to protect oursevles from a tyrannical government. Hitler was democratically elected. He had same mindset as the yound man in Connecticut; unfortunately he was more cunning and ambitious a murderer. He bided his time, persuaded quite a few talented people to join his cult, and proceeded to murder millions of innocent men, women, and children. Now he did have the ” freedom to choose ” his diabolical path in life, but he choose an evil path. It’s possible this could happen in the USA. The primary function of government is to protect the lives and property of citizens. The people must be abe to band together and protect themselves from a government composed of evil people. However, civilized human beings do not arbitrarily kill one another. As in the case of Hitler and the young man in Connecticut, humans sometimes ” choose ” to do evil. All human life is ineffably sacred and deserves respect and protection, even helpless, gestating life found in a human womb.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
It’s a date Kayser – I am scheduled to leave the bunker for supplies soon I’ll let you know..;)
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Name your time and place.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
BCG – I always liked the kissing and making up part of relationships. Name the time and place.
But…..government exists because of the nature of people. We are fearful of government, because of the nature of people. Nasty little conondrum that.
Also: We have government because we are not civilized enough for anarchy.
Finally, saying to leave morality out of my arguments is not something any of us do. One example from the extreme: Let us say I don’t like something someone else is doing – do I take up arms to have my way. You say, but you can’t interfere that much with someone, your rights end where another’s begin. Is that not a moral position? Is not the ascribing of basic rights a subjective one of morality?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“We are not civilized enough for anarchy.” — Excellent.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0