MachIVshooter
Member
A couple of days ago, I had a lot of thoughts circulating in my head. This is not the only thing I got out in writing, but I believe it's one that may be useful in bringing people around. Feel free to share, constructive criticism is welcome.
I do ask that no one plagiarize me, though; If you submit my writing to someone else, such as a newspaper editor, please credit me.
It's a somewhat lengthy diatribe, but please bear with me.
_________________________________________________________________
Think about your freedoms
As the gun control debate rages, my mind is a flurry of activity. I am a gun owner, a hunter, a shooter and a collector, so I definitely feel under attack. That said, this is a different kind of appeal to the other side; it is not some trite regurgitation of “shall not be infringed”, of trying to convince my opposition that one gun is no more lethal than another, or about how gun control doesn’t reduce gun crime-even though those things and many more are true. No, this is an angle that I don’t believe the anti-gun crowd and those who support them or are indifferent on the issue have considered very much, if at all.
There is no question that gun control of any kind infringes on the rights and freedoms of current and future law abiding gun owners. This is not up for debate; it’s a cold, hard fact. Some of the gun control that has been passed over the decades may have had a tiny, remote effect on gun violence, while the extreme majority of it has not. But for the purposes of this argument, the effectiveness (rather a lack thereof ) that any given legislation has had on crime or gun violence is wholly irrelevant. The real issue with gun control is how it affects every American’s freedom. In this dissertation, I will articulate exactly how.
As I write this, gun rights are under attack at the federal level and in my home state of Colorado. The Democrat party controls the federal senate and the presidency, and they control both houses and the governorship in my state. I have written countless letters and made countless phone calls to my representatives and others. I have attended public committee hearings on the proposed legislation, and I have spoken at these hearings. My words, like the words of any other person or group in opposition, fell on deaf ears of the Majority party pushing this legislation. The fact that they have to accept our letters and hear us testify in these hearings is merely an inconvenient formality of their jobs. They truly do not care how valid the opposition’s arguments are, or how many people took the time and made the sacrifices to be there and be heard on very short notice. Their minds are made up, the hearings are just a dog and pony show. If you actually feel that you have a voice, just attend one such hearing in opposition to the majority party proposing it; you’ll be cured of your belief that us serfs matter at all. Government officials may have heard that all men are created equal; they may have even spoken those words. Rest assured, though, that they are quite certain they’re more equal than you or I.
My appeal is primarily to those supporting the gun control measures, but also to those who are indifferent to them. You may not like guns at all, or you may not care if people have them or don’t. Most people have some opinion on the matter, but few care enough to get involved. That doesn’t mean this won’t affect you. Just because you don’t like guns and want them to go away, or because you don’t personally wish to own one, does not mean that anti-gun legislation will not cost you. Sooner or later, the political pendulum will swing the other way. Given the nature of gun control, how it tends to make people single issue voters and mobilize a base in ways that no other issue can, I suspect that pendulum swing will happen sooner than later, most likely in the 2014 and 2016 elections. Gun owners do not forget, and at approximately 80 million in this country, we are not an insignificant population. When the political power does shift, hold onto your hats. You won’t be dealing with the same old republican party; The one that follows this sweeping gun control movement will be a scorned and vengeful one, out for blood and chomping at the bit to strike back. This is what I mean when I say that gun control hurts us all; EVERYONE has some freedom they hold dear, and every single one of those freedoms is a target of one party or the other. Maybe for you it’s gay rights, maybe it’s religion, maybe it’s women’s reproductive rights- doesn’t matter; whatever it is that you value in your life, one of the two major political parties opposes it on some level and seeks to infringe, restrict or abolish.
Now consider this; I’m a libertarian with conservative undertones. I believe strongly in personal freedom, and I don’t like to see government attempt to strip it from any person or group under any pretense. But I am also human, and suffer from the human condition. As rational a person as I am, I’m not immune from emotions, and I may sometimes be inclined to act on them, despite my principles and possible future consequences. The right to keep and bear arms is paramount to me, not only as a man who enjoys hunting and recreational shooting, but as a person who values the right and the ability to defend himself and his family, be it against violent common criminals or a tyrannical government. As such, if this right that I value so highly is infringed on by the party currently in power, revenge when the scales tip will be very tempting-maybe even too tempting, to the extent that I could abandon my beliefs in staunchly defending all people’s personal freedoms in favor of punishing those who supported or allowed by indifference the restricting of my rights. So while I would ordinarily say yes, I am personally pro-life, but no, I don’t support government intrusion on a woman’s right to choose, in understanding that the party guilty of assaulting my right is the same party that is supported by the pro-choice side, there is a possibility that I will NOT speak out for those who are under attack when those rights are on the chopping block. Same for other issues that don’t affect me personally and will seem to strike back at those who struck first. Again, as pro-freedom as I am, punitive action against those who supported directly a party that attacked me will be very appealing, and may even win the argument in my head. If a libertarian like me can feel this way, imagine what a died-in-the-wool, kool-aid drinking hard line republican will do.
For for the record, even though I lean conservative, I no more identify with or support the extreme religious right trying to legislate morals according to the bible than I do the progressive left trying to force single payer healthcare. Once again, freedom for all is the point here, irrespective of your personal beliefs. You want to raise your kids according to the principles of whatever religion you practice, great, do it. Far be it from me or anyone else to tell you that you can’t. But don’t try to force other people to rear children that way, taking away their freedom to raise them how they see fit. Similarly, if you’re a homosexual, good for you, I’m glad you figured out what makes you happy, and I will not support any legislation that attempts to restrict your right to life, liberty and your pursuit of happiness. But don’t expect special class treatment, and don’t accuse a prospective employer of being homophobic and engaging in discrimination, subjecting him/her/the company to punitive action, just because someone else fit the job requirements better and you didn’t get it. And no, I’m not talking about the interviewer who actually says “I won’t hire you because I don’t like gays”; that person would be guilty of infringing on your rights via real discrimination. You have the right to do whatever makes you happy (so long as it doesn’t infringe on other’s rights), but you do not have the right to dictate what other people do because it makes you happy.
Nobody owes you anything. Again, it’s a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Happiness is not guaranteed by the constitution; the guarantee is that you will be allowed to pursue it. And there is absolutely no language in the constitution that allows you or anyone else to pursue it legislatively, especially when that legislation negatively impacts other people’s right to their pursuit of happiness. Yes, I’m talking about legislated special rights and legislated, forced “charity”. You have a right to earn a living, and I have a right to earn a living. You do not have a right to supplement your lower income with some of mine; if you feel that you should have some of what is mine and proceed to take it, we call that theft, and it is a violation of my rights to retain the property I rightfully possess. Why is it any different if the middleman government takes it from me and gives (part of it) to you? If you’re not making enough money, improve your skillset and find higher paying employment. Using legislation to make others pay when you come up short is the antithesis of freedom.
Continuing with the theme of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is the liberty part. Liberty is not safety, and liberty is not certified safe; you are not guaranteed safety by the constitution. We, as a society, may make laws that improve safety, and that is acceptable, even favorable, to the extent that those laws do not take away liberty. This is tricky for law makers. Not because it’s actually difficult to write legislation that improves safety without restricting liberty, but because they don’t comprehend the liberty part. It’s quite simple, really; your rights end where another person’s begin. We have the right to free speech, but it is not unlimited; you do not get to say things that incite panic and endanger the lives of others, infringing on their right to life. The classic example has been yelling “FIRE!” in a crowded theatre when there is no fire. We also have the right to keep and bear arms, but that right does not allow us to be reckless with a deadly weapon, which would potentially kill people, infringing on their right to life. So again, it really is a simple concept. I am absolutely confounded that it seems to elude so many, especially those in government.
With freedom comes responsibility. Exactly what the responsibility is depends on the particular freedom. But the principle we live by in the United States of America, as laid forth by the framers, is that we are born free. We do not have to earn these freedoms, we are not indentured to our government or anyone else. As such, these freedoms are not to be stripped from a person or group of people without due process, and due process does not include preemptive strikes against innocent people for something they could or might do. Innocent until proven guilty, and the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These are the principles of our great nation. The ONLY reason to infringe upon or take away the rights of a person or a group of people is if they’ve demonstrated that they cannot be trusted with those rights. And demonstrated is narrowly defined in this respect as having done something or being overly likely to do something that infringes on another person’s rights. We do not imprison innocent people for what they could do, only for what they did or showed that they would most likely do if not removed from free society. As the former, the latter is also something only done through due process. We do not determine that because somebody looks scary or acts in a way we disapprove of that they should not be free. We only imprison (institutionalize, as it were) a person who hasn’t yet committed a crime if they pose an extraordinary risk to society, and a specific, arduous process is required prior to restricting their freedom, with the onus of proving why that freedom should be restricted falling on those attempting to do the restricting. That is the responsibility part; unless a person demonstrates that he or she cannot exercise his or her freedoms responsibly by not infringing on another person’s freedoms, we do not take them away
I implore you to open your mind and try to think differently than you likely ever have. I wasn’t always such a pro-freedom person. I always thought I was, but as I got a little older (I’m 31 now), I began to realize that I was like most others; I was pro-MY freedom, with little regard for how legislation that didn't affect me harmed others (and, as demonstrated in this diatribe, actually did affect me in the long run). When I was younger, I did not have the tolerance for alternative lifestyles that I do now. And no, this wasn’t the product of being brought up in some bigoted right-wing family. My sister and I are actually the only conservative-leaning people in my entire family, on either side; The rest are staunch Democrats. So some of my intolerance may have been rebellious in nature, some of it was the result of influence, and some was in retaliation to having other people’s agendas shoved down my throat. Ultimately, though, I came to realize that such bigotry is not only unhealthy, but is also counter-productive to the American ideal. It didn’t happen overnight, but after a period of time I dissolved this intolerance. This does not mean I don’t have my prejudices, of course. We all do. Nobody is that tolerant, regardless of how benevolent and altruistic they believe they are. The difference is that some of us can keep our personal prejudice from influencing our decisions that affect the lives of innocent people, and some cannot. If you support legislation that restricts the rights of other innocent people, you are of the latter persuasion. You can deny it all you want, but that’s a fact. Unfortunately, this is a hallmark of the progressive left; Nearly in the same breath, I will hear “for the greater good” and “if it helps/saves just one person”; These tenets create an insoluble paradox of ideology within that group. To be fair, the other side is not devoid of such irreconcilable dogma.
Folks, we can’t afford to lose ANY of our liberty in this day and age. It does not matter if it is one that you personally care about or not. No party holds control forever, and both parties seek ultimate control. Every few years the power shifts, but one theme is common; freedoms that are lost under one reign are seldom restored when the political scales tip. It’s just the other side’s turn to lose. Eventually, there will be nothing more to take from the American people, and when that happens, party won’t matter. We’ve seen both sides moving closer to a common ground of totalitarianism; the only difference is the techniques and the propaganda used for the usurpation. Presently, the parties are really only separated by a few hot button issues. Once those are decided (read-the rights and liberties of each group have been destroyed by the other), there will be no use for a multi-party democratic republic, and we will all be disenfranchised. Then you can watch things fall apart completely. Mark my words, that day is coming. The only way to stave it off is to fight for rights and freedoms; not just the ones you value personally, but ALL OF THEM. I will continue to stand up for the rights of groups I do not associate with or even agree with, and I expect the same from you. Let’s return this nation to one of limited government, a government that is once again of the people, by the people and for the people. In the words of Benjamin Franklin, “We must hang together, or we will most assuredly hang separately.”
I do ask that no one plagiarize me, though; If you submit my writing to someone else, such as a newspaper editor, please credit me.
It's a somewhat lengthy diatribe, but please bear with me.
_________________________________________________________________
Think about your freedoms
As the gun control debate rages, my mind is a flurry of activity. I am a gun owner, a hunter, a shooter and a collector, so I definitely feel under attack. That said, this is a different kind of appeal to the other side; it is not some trite regurgitation of “shall not be infringed”, of trying to convince my opposition that one gun is no more lethal than another, or about how gun control doesn’t reduce gun crime-even though those things and many more are true. No, this is an angle that I don’t believe the anti-gun crowd and those who support them or are indifferent on the issue have considered very much, if at all.
There is no question that gun control of any kind infringes on the rights and freedoms of current and future law abiding gun owners. This is not up for debate; it’s a cold, hard fact. Some of the gun control that has been passed over the decades may have had a tiny, remote effect on gun violence, while the extreme majority of it has not. But for the purposes of this argument, the effectiveness (rather a lack thereof ) that any given legislation has had on crime or gun violence is wholly irrelevant. The real issue with gun control is how it affects every American’s freedom. In this dissertation, I will articulate exactly how.
As I write this, gun rights are under attack at the federal level and in my home state of Colorado. The Democrat party controls the federal senate and the presidency, and they control both houses and the governorship in my state. I have written countless letters and made countless phone calls to my representatives and others. I have attended public committee hearings on the proposed legislation, and I have spoken at these hearings. My words, like the words of any other person or group in opposition, fell on deaf ears of the Majority party pushing this legislation. The fact that they have to accept our letters and hear us testify in these hearings is merely an inconvenient formality of their jobs. They truly do not care how valid the opposition’s arguments are, or how many people took the time and made the sacrifices to be there and be heard on very short notice. Their minds are made up, the hearings are just a dog and pony show. If you actually feel that you have a voice, just attend one such hearing in opposition to the majority party proposing it; you’ll be cured of your belief that us serfs matter at all. Government officials may have heard that all men are created equal; they may have even spoken those words. Rest assured, though, that they are quite certain they’re more equal than you or I.
My appeal is primarily to those supporting the gun control measures, but also to those who are indifferent to them. You may not like guns at all, or you may not care if people have them or don’t. Most people have some opinion on the matter, but few care enough to get involved. That doesn’t mean this won’t affect you. Just because you don’t like guns and want them to go away, or because you don’t personally wish to own one, does not mean that anti-gun legislation will not cost you. Sooner or later, the political pendulum will swing the other way. Given the nature of gun control, how it tends to make people single issue voters and mobilize a base in ways that no other issue can, I suspect that pendulum swing will happen sooner than later, most likely in the 2014 and 2016 elections. Gun owners do not forget, and at approximately 80 million in this country, we are not an insignificant population. When the political power does shift, hold onto your hats. You won’t be dealing with the same old republican party; The one that follows this sweeping gun control movement will be a scorned and vengeful one, out for blood and chomping at the bit to strike back. This is what I mean when I say that gun control hurts us all; EVERYONE has some freedom they hold dear, and every single one of those freedoms is a target of one party or the other. Maybe for you it’s gay rights, maybe it’s religion, maybe it’s women’s reproductive rights- doesn’t matter; whatever it is that you value in your life, one of the two major political parties opposes it on some level and seeks to infringe, restrict or abolish.
Now consider this; I’m a libertarian with conservative undertones. I believe strongly in personal freedom, and I don’t like to see government attempt to strip it from any person or group under any pretense. But I am also human, and suffer from the human condition. As rational a person as I am, I’m not immune from emotions, and I may sometimes be inclined to act on them, despite my principles and possible future consequences. The right to keep and bear arms is paramount to me, not only as a man who enjoys hunting and recreational shooting, but as a person who values the right and the ability to defend himself and his family, be it against violent common criminals or a tyrannical government. As such, if this right that I value so highly is infringed on by the party currently in power, revenge when the scales tip will be very tempting-maybe even too tempting, to the extent that I could abandon my beliefs in staunchly defending all people’s personal freedoms in favor of punishing those who supported or allowed by indifference the restricting of my rights. So while I would ordinarily say yes, I am personally pro-life, but no, I don’t support government intrusion on a woman’s right to choose, in understanding that the party guilty of assaulting my right is the same party that is supported by the pro-choice side, there is a possibility that I will NOT speak out for those who are under attack when those rights are on the chopping block. Same for other issues that don’t affect me personally and will seem to strike back at those who struck first. Again, as pro-freedom as I am, punitive action against those who supported directly a party that attacked me will be very appealing, and may even win the argument in my head. If a libertarian like me can feel this way, imagine what a died-in-the-wool, kool-aid drinking hard line republican will do.
For for the record, even though I lean conservative, I no more identify with or support the extreme religious right trying to legislate morals according to the bible than I do the progressive left trying to force single payer healthcare. Once again, freedom for all is the point here, irrespective of your personal beliefs. You want to raise your kids according to the principles of whatever religion you practice, great, do it. Far be it from me or anyone else to tell you that you can’t. But don’t try to force other people to rear children that way, taking away their freedom to raise them how they see fit. Similarly, if you’re a homosexual, good for you, I’m glad you figured out what makes you happy, and I will not support any legislation that attempts to restrict your right to life, liberty and your pursuit of happiness. But don’t expect special class treatment, and don’t accuse a prospective employer of being homophobic and engaging in discrimination, subjecting him/her/the company to punitive action, just because someone else fit the job requirements better and you didn’t get it. And no, I’m not talking about the interviewer who actually says “I won’t hire you because I don’t like gays”; that person would be guilty of infringing on your rights via real discrimination. You have the right to do whatever makes you happy (so long as it doesn’t infringe on other’s rights), but you do not have the right to dictate what other people do because it makes you happy.
Nobody owes you anything. Again, it’s a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Happiness is not guaranteed by the constitution; the guarantee is that you will be allowed to pursue it. And there is absolutely no language in the constitution that allows you or anyone else to pursue it legislatively, especially when that legislation negatively impacts other people’s right to their pursuit of happiness. Yes, I’m talking about legislated special rights and legislated, forced “charity”. You have a right to earn a living, and I have a right to earn a living. You do not have a right to supplement your lower income with some of mine; if you feel that you should have some of what is mine and proceed to take it, we call that theft, and it is a violation of my rights to retain the property I rightfully possess. Why is it any different if the middleman government takes it from me and gives (part of it) to you? If you’re not making enough money, improve your skillset and find higher paying employment. Using legislation to make others pay when you come up short is the antithesis of freedom.
Continuing with the theme of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is the liberty part. Liberty is not safety, and liberty is not certified safe; you are not guaranteed safety by the constitution. We, as a society, may make laws that improve safety, and that is acceptable, even favorable, to the extent that those laws do not take away liberty. This is tricky for law makers. Not because it’s actually difficult to write legislation that improves safety without restricting liberty, but because they don’t comprehend the liberty part. It’s quite simple, really; your rights end where another person’s begin. We have the right to free speech, but it is not unlimited; you do not get to say things that incite panic and endanger the lives of others, infringing on their right to life. The classic example has been yelling “FIRE!” in a crowded theatre when there is no fire. We also have the right to keep and bear arms, but that right does not allow us to be reckless with a deadly weapon, which would potentially kill people, infringing on their right to life. So again, it really is a simple concept. I am absolutely confounded that it seems to elude so many, especially those in government.
With freedom comes responsibility. Exactly what the responsibility is depends on the particular freedom. But the principle we live by in the United States of America, as laid forth by the framers, is that we are born free. We do not have to earn these freedoms, we are not indentured to our government or anyone else. As such, these freedoms are not to be stripped from a person or group of people without due process, and due process does not include preemptive strikes against innocent people for something they could or might do. Innocent until proven guilty, and the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These are the principles of our great nation. The ONLY reason to infringe upon or take away the rights of a person or a group of people is if they’ve demonstrated that they cannot be trusted with those rights. And demonstrated is narrowly defined in this respect as having done something or being overly likely to do something that infringes on another person’s rights. We do not imprison innocent people for what they could do, only for what they did or showed that they would most likely do if not removed from free society. As the former, the latter is also something only done through due process. We do not determine that because somebody looks scary or acts in a way we disapprove of that they should not be free. We only imprison (institutionalize, as it were) a person who hasn’t yet committed a crime if they pose an extraordinary risk to society, and a specific, arduous process is required prior to restricting their freedom, with the onus of proving why that freedom should be restricted falling on those attempting to do the restricting. That is the responsibility part; unless a person demonstrates that he or she cannot exercise his or her freedoms responsibly by not infringing on another person’s freedoms, we do not take them away
I implore you to open your mind and try to think differently than you likely ever have. I wasn’t always such a pro-freedom person. I always thought I was, but as I got a little older (I’m 31 now), I began to realize that I was like most others; I was pro-MY freedom, with little regard for how legislation that didn't affect me harmed others (and, as demonstrated in this diatribe, actually did affect me in the long run). When I was younger, I did not have the tolerance for alternative lifestyles that I do now. And no, this wasn’t the product of being brought up in some bigoted right-wing family. My sister and I are actually the only conservative-leaning people in my entire family, on either side; The rest are staunch Democrats. So some of my intolerance may have been rebellious in nature, some of it was the result of influence, and some was in retaliation to having other people’s agendas shoved down my throat. Ultimately, though, I came to realize that such bigotry is not only unhealthy, but is also counter-productive to the American ideal. It didn’t happen overnight, but after a period of time I dissolved this intolerance. This does not mean I don’t have my prejudices, of course. We all do. Nobody is that tolerant, regardless of how benevolent and altruistic they believe they are. The difference is that some of us can keep our personal prejudice from influencing our decisions that affect the lives of innocent people, and some cannot. If you support legislation that restricts the rights of other innocent people, you are of the latter persuasion. You can deny it all you want, but that’s a fact. Unfortunately, this is a hallmark of the progressive left; Nearly in the same breath, I will hear “for the greater good” and “if it helps/saves just one person”; These tenets create an insoluble paradox of ideology within that group. To be fair, the other side is not devoid of such irreconcilable dogma.
Folks, we can’t afford to lose ANY of our liberty in this day and age. It does not matter if it is one that you personally care about or not. No party holds control forever, and both parties seek ultimate control. Every few years the power shifts, but one theme is common; freedoms that are lost under one reign are seldom restored when the political scales tip. It’s just the other side’s turn to lose. Eventually, there will be nothing more to take from the American people, and when that happens, party won’t matter. We’ve seen both sides moving closer to a common ground of totalitarianism; the only difference is the techniques and the propaganda used for the usurpation. Presently, the parties are really only separated by a few hot button issues. Once those are decided (read-the rights and liberties of each group have been destroyed by the other), there will be no use for a multi-party democratic republic, and we will all be disenfranchised. Then you can watch things fall apart completely. Mark my words, that day is coming. The only way to stave it off is to fight for rights and freedoms; not just the ones you value personally, but ALL OF THEM. I will continue to stand up for the rights of groups I do not associate with or even agree with, and I expect the same from you. Let’s return this nation to one of limited government, a government that is once again of the people, by the people and for the people. In the words of Benjamin Franklin, “We must hang together, or we will most assuredly hang separately.”
Last edited:
