This Month's Top Commentators

  • Lewis LewisTop Commentator Award
  • Zon ZonTop Commentator Award
  • Skyler the Weird Skyler the WeirdTop Commentator Award
  • Terrence TerrenceTop Commentator Award
  • Bruce Bruce

The Best Voter Lists Available

PunditHouse Store

The Rule Of Law vs. Empire State Idiocy

|

The Rule of Law says two things:

1) The law applies equally to all, and;

2) Everyone is afforded equal protection under the law.

Pretty straight forward, right? We’re all the same in the eyes of the law.

Now, imagine two guys break into my house in the middle of the night. I call 911. One of the guys kills my wife. The other guy kills a responding police officer. During the melee I swoop in, spit some Beech Nut in those dudes eyes and shoot ‘em with my old forty-five. They don’t die (I shoot to stop the threat not to wound or kill) and Homicide Detective Jack Scagnetti hauls ‘em off to jail.

So, should the guy who killed the cop get a stiffer punishment than the guy who killed my wife? And, if you think he should, why is the cop’s life worth than my wife’s? Isn’t my wife’s life worth exactly the same as the cop? Doesn’t the Declaration of Independence say we’re all created equal? And, doesn’t the rule of law say that my wife and the cop are both afforded the same protection under the law?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m as thankful as anyone we have people willing to voluntarily put their life on the line for others (as a former US Marine I count myself among those who have, do, and will). But that doesn’t mean their life or mine is worth more than yours, does it?

Or, do we have two sets of laws – one set for the important people and another set for the not-so-important people? Me thinks we do…

From a WGRZ news story on the recent passage of New York’s new gun law:

“The legislation would also include the “Webster provision,” a mandatory life-without-parole sentence for anyone found to have killed a first responder.  The provision is a reference to the Christmas Eve shooting in the Monroe County town, where two firefighters were shot and killed.”

Okay, so there’s an obvious and intentional trampling of the rule of law. And, get this; the guy who killed the firefighters on Christmas Eve previously murdered his own grandmother – with a hammer. And who let him back out in the world? The state of New York!

So, obviously the government of the state of New York values the lives of first responders more than little old ladies, AND they trampled on the rule of law, AND they’re violating the Second Amendment rights of their law-abiding citizens, AND they let monsters who viciously murder others out of jail.

What should New York have done? They should have hanged him in the street for all to see the very day he was convicted of beating his grandma to death. Had they done that those firefighters would still be alive, the neighborhood wouldn’t have burned to the ground, and the good people of the state of New York would have saved all the tax dollars they spent keeping the guy in jail for killing granny while avoiding having their rights violated without getting even so much as a reach-around.

Oh, and by the way, according to state officials the majority of gun crime in New York is committed with guns brought into the state illegally. That’s an inconvenient fact for the state of New York. See, that’s something no law (the old or the new one) can or will do anything about. Once a person decides they need a gun (either to kill someone else, or, in the case of most poor inner-city folk, to keep from being killed) and the only way to get one is to steal it or buy it illegally, laws don’t matter.

People who intend to take a life or are in fear for their life WILL get a gun. In fact, by forcing people to break the law in order to get a gun, the state is actually creating crime. How so? Let’s see if you can count: a guy who legally a buys a gun and then murders someone committed ____ crime. The guy who steals a gun and then murders someone committed ____ crimes. See how that works? The theft was created by the state law. The murderer’s intent – to commit murder – had nothing to do with the theft. The theft was an artificially, state-created, necessary step in carrying out his intent that he cared nothing about.

Folks, it’s simple. If you want to end gun violence the answer is not to make guns illegal and violate the rights of law-abiding citizens. The answer – long known in the course of human history but politically incorrect in today’s society – is to involuntarily commit people who are a danger to themselves or others until they’re no longer a danger, and to publicly and swiftly execute – with conviction – those who murder others. So says the rule of the law and private property rights. For those who say the answer to murder is not “state-sanctioned murder” (execution), the rule of law (and physics) says one other thing: the use of an equal amount of force to offset an opposite force negates both, leaving society with a net zero amount of force. And isn’t that what we call peace?

Oh well, all I can say is I’m glad I don’t live in New York. Those people are idiots to let their government trample on them like this while at the same time telling they’re making them safer.

Donate Now!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=12840

Comments are closed