There's a reason they're called "rights".

Ah, remember those good old days when black folk had to sit in the back of the bus?  Remember those peacful times when women didn't have the right to vote?  When marriage was between a man and a women?

Of course, many of us look back on those times now and cringe - those of us who care about rights, that is.  Yet, in those days, if we had polled Americans we would likely have seen large majorities that felt women should be home, barefoot and pregnant, that they hardly had the wherewithal to think rationally, let alone vote (as much as I support rights, I still wonder about Mika Brzezinski).  I am sure that a majorty of Americans thought that yesterday's "Negroes" - today's African-Americans - were less than human and served better as pack animals than fellow citizens.  Thankfully we are a nation of rights and, at some point, came to realize that polls and votes are not the arbiter of rights, that there are issues that transcend the "majority rule".  There was a reason that certain rights were enumerated in the Bill of Rights and a reason that it is so difficult to "officially" do away with them via legal processes.

So there we are - cite all the polls you wish, but the second amendment is not an issue of popularity; it cannot be denied simply because the wind blows a different direction today any more than could those other rights people enjoy.  Violence, you say?   Violence is violence, it is a human condition, not a characteritic of inamimate objects.  The car you drive, the knife you use, the firearm your neighbor carries - not of them kill of their own accord.  They kill in the hands of people, violent, careless, negligent, evil people.

So, "gun safety" (Orwell was prescient in so many ways) legislation fails and the whining and pointing to polls, as if they can negate rights, begin.  For example, “On Capitol Hill, less than 55% of the Senate was willing to back a proposal that polls say is supported by roughly 90% of Americans,” co-host Mika Brzezinski said on Thursday’s Morning Joe.   Of course, she also loves it that Bloomberg is telling his peons what they can drink.

Next we enter phase two - individual states have begun asserting their own control over gun owners' rights and, of course, the Northeast leads to way in imposing draconian and seemingly unconstitutional restrictions on the rights of Americans.  Of course, those at a national level applaud this, considering it step one to more national control.

But let's ponder this:  Suppose a southern state were to decide that that whole civil rights thing was bunk, that the back of the bus was fine, as were separate schools and water fountains.  Is that okay with everyone out there?  Why not?  If each state is allowed to interpret "rights" in its own way - or not and simply deny them - then what's the difference?  Even more egregious is the fact that the Civil Rights Act is law - an interpretation of rights not specifically enumerated in the constitution.  Compare that to the second amendment, in which gun ownership is clearly spelled out as a right.  In fact, the second amendment does not grant that right, it assumes it exists in the natural order ("the right of the people") and merely asserts that it "shall will not be infringed".  So our constitution accepts the natural right to bear arms for protection and asserts that it may not be abridged; not muvch in there about women or minorities.

For those who prefer polls and consensus to the Bill of Rights, I say "There is a reason they are rights".  That reason is that they are not subject to majority aproval.  My rights are not up for you to debate, any more than yours are for mine.  Even Rachel Maddow asserted this when discussing gay rights - that we do not poll or vote on rights.  She does, however, seem to have conveniently forgotten that stand for unalienable rights when it comes to rights she personally does not enjoy.

Riddle me this...

Not long ago, about 11 years and change, many of us were wondering whether Americans would, out of fear, willingly give up their constitutional rights in the hopes that government would watch over our every move and protect us.  You know - strip searches at airports, tap our phones, etc.  And, yes oh yes, we were met with a lot of accusations about being treasonous and whatever because we were concerned that liberty not be circumvented out of terror.

Fast-forward - zing - and now we see NY Mayor Bloomberg deciding for the rest of us that "...we live in a complex world where you’re going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change."  Thanks for your opinion - I guess if you have enough money you can buy an office and the time so people to have to listen to it.  But while you may be willing to trade your rights and freedom for increased security, I am not.  I am not willing to give up on something just because some (terrorists) do not like it and others (e.g., Bloomberg) are scared.  You have the money to buy the security YOU need to make you feel safe - do that and leave my rights alone.

What is it about people that they do not realize that if we change the nature of who we are out of fear, then those who would terrorize us win.  You have, in essence, allowed them to define the limits of our freedoms by their misdeeds.  Letting them shut down cities, roll convoys of Urban Assault Vehicles, enter your homes without a warrant, all because you are afraid, is the beginning of losing all of your freedoms.  Letting a media and a government (whoever is running it) convince you that you are in grave danger and that they should do whatever they want to keep you safe is step one of having those ubiquitous cameras not only on the street, but in your living room.  How many of the terrified masses would be willing to make that deal?  Sadly more than a free nation would wish.

Don't tell me what to eat, don't tell me I cannot responsibly exercise my right to self-protection, don't tell me only you can keep me safe and that I should turn that responsibility over to you no matter the cost.

Scarborough and the Gadahn connection

Speaking of guilt by association (previous post), Joe Scarborough (BTW, has anyone ever counted the number of times he uses the term "I" in any one broadcast? Dude knows it all about everything - was there at the signing of the Declaration of Independence I suspect) and his sidekick Mika have been incessant in their giving air-time to a video by American-born Al Qaeda spokesman Adam Gadahn.  In the video - I refuse to give it or Joe air-time here - Gadahn notes the apparently ease of obtaining firearms in the US without a background check.  How better to cast a shadow on an American right to keep and bear arms than to associate it with a terrorist?

A few points need to be made:

1.  Gadahn's contentions are false - but at least some of us expect lies from terrorists.
2.  It is interesting, however, that when such opinions fit with someone's agenda, they are willing to have an Al Qaeda spokesman speak for them, too (yes, Joe, that is you - taking a terrorist's word for something because you WANT to believe it).  So, terrorists are duplicitous when we want them to be, but accurate reporters when you need them to be.
3.  Has Joe ever wondered if Al Qaeda and Gadahn might have a stake in creating such divisions in America, in creating an unarmed America?  Probably not - but such a tape might be a perfect way to disarm a nation without firing a shot.  Perhaps they are not as stupid as he thinks.

So it goes - Joe, Mika, and Adam Gadahn - an unlikely group to be standing shoulder to shoulder in many ways.  But when Gadahn has convinced them to disarm the nation, we will all be safer I am sure.

Guilt by association - good for all?

I am no fan of Paul Ryan, but I do feel the need to point out hypocrisy when I see it.  Liberals like to bitch about comments like "Paling around with terrorists" when idiots like Sarah Palin make them.  If this approach is so evil, why then, do they try to do the same thing?

Lord knows I would not want to be judged by the actions of everyone I have ever known.  I have former friends who have done some pretty horrendous things, have had relatives who have served time for armed robbery.  I have no idea how many former associates of mine might be involved in a lot of unsavory behavior.  So while Paul Ryan may be a jerk and you may disagree with his policies, it is hardly fair to hold him responsible for the behavior of his former associates.

This is the same bull shit that both sides keep playing with each other - who can vilify the other - whether it is about guns, values, immigration, terrorism, whatever.  Of course, they play it only to their own bases, ginning up division and hatred.  We certainly need more hatred around here!  Sure, that'll fix things right up!  Time to stop thinking you are better than everyone else.

Do they read the things they fund?

For those who do not know, Congress created the National Gang Intelligence Center in 2005.  Not so long ago, the NGIC released its National Gang Threat Assessment for 2011 (you can find it on the FBI website).  In the midst of the great debates about "Gun Safety" - Orwell-speak for limiting firearms rights - it is sometimes good to take advantage of the amount of data and information the government promulgates.

Looking over some of the key findings from the NGTA, it is worth noting that:

"• US-based gangs have established strong working relationships with Central American and MDTOs to perpetrate illicit cross-border activity, as well as with some organized crime groups in some regions of the United States. US-based gangs and MDTOs are establishing wide-reaching drug networks; assisting in the smuggling of drugs, weapons, and illegal immigrants along the Southwest Border; and serving as enforcers for MDTO interests on the US side of the border."

BTW, MDTOs are Mexican Drug Trafficking Organizations.  It would be great if those in Congress would read the materials that come from agencies they create and fund.

Given that we - the US - have been largely incapable of doing anything to seal our porous southern border to the flow of drugs (and people) and given how well the many years of drug war have gone (yeah, right!), how well do we expect to do with the "weapons" part of the above?  Who will access these weapons?  Well, if they are illegal here, I guess the obvious answer is criminals - kind of like the drugs.  But then, criminals would normally be the clientèle for such weapons, not being able to access them legally, while law-abiding citizens will, for the most part, abide by the law.

The point here - that no one seems to want to hear - is that banning certain guns and magazines is not going to stop violence - it is merely going to increase defenselessness.  The fantasy that an unarmed society will be some Utopian vision is foolhardy.  "Gun safety" advocates like to point to other gun-prohibiting nations.  First, they are not the pristine, risk and violence-free environments you think they are.  But even if they were, none of them share a long and troublesome border with Mexico.

Add to this the fact that nothing in the proposed legislation currently being debated would have stopped any of the recent mass killings.  Crazy people will find a way.  Criminals will find a way.  Law-abiding citizens will suffer.

So, tell me...

Why does lawlessness mean that I cannot exercise my rights?  Juxtapose that with this defense against criminals.

Lawlessness abounds - where people have the right to defend themselves they can stand against it.  It does not come to them because they are armed - other than gang violence, criminals do not intend to get into gun fights.  I suspect the like-minded criminal colleagues of these "retired" home invaders in North Carolina may think twice about plying their trade in the area.  Not so in Chicago, where only criminals have firearms.

I know vilification when I see it.

Ah, vilification – if you want to justify denying or violating the rights of other human beings – even those who are your countrymen (should that be country-people?) - then you have to be good at vilification.  It worked for Bush after 9/11 in the midst of paranoia and now we have drones, indefinite detentions, rampant surveillance, and targeting of American citizens standing as the law of the land. 

Although all of that was much bemoaned by the liberal voices among us, it is now working for them in their quest to limit access to firearms by law-abiding citizens.  Playing the conservative game quite well, they can’t get enough of selling the image that law-abiding firearms owners are really radical crazies.  I have to wonder how the media would take it if this video was vilifying same-sex crazies; or perhaps they could make a comedy video about abortion factories?

Even in a land where lip-service is given to the idea that individual rights are supreme (e.g., the right to abortion on demand and to marry someone the person of your choice, regardless of race or sexual preference), one can ultimately violate the rights of any subgroup if they can make them an “other”, to make them so different, so threatening, as to no longer qualify for the rights that the majority wants for itself.

Enter this fine example of such an approach applied to gun control.  Is it really so hard to understand why some see current events as an assault on their freedoms - as a personal assault on their culture - and see the "reasonable gun control" rhetoric as step one in confiscation.  Indeed, if Obama, Feinstein, Schumer, and Bloomberg (and Jim Carrey and others) were honest, they would admit that their goal is to confiscate all firearms and that they are now, for all intents and purposes, slowly and methodically "boiling the toad".  They are using the rhetoric of vilification to create an atmosphere in which firearms owners become "others" to be marginalized and disarmed.  Next step - when those "others" resist being disarmed, they will be a "threat to the good order" and will deserve any measure of retribution or imprisonment the government throws at them.  So, to protect “us” they will have to be detained.

People like Jim Carrey could not give a shit about personal freedoms they do not enjoy.  Of course, I would love to see how much money he, his manager, or studio pay for his personal security.  Sadly, no one pays for mine.

As an advocate of rights for years – all rights – I found myself seemingly in alliance with people whose interests I did not share as a heterosexual, white male, but whose rights I thought were important to defend.  I will never need an abortion, I have no interest in marrying a man, I am Caucasian.  Still, I have always been on the side of rights.  Now those people whose rights I defended although I do not share their preferences, seem not care about rights at all, just their own desires.  So bizarre that a group that fights for the rights of women to abort fetuses wants to disarm people, that those who have said polls about gay marriage meant nothing and that we should not vote on rights now cling to polls regarding firearms and suggest not succumbing to such polls is violating the will of the people. For years I told others that if you insist on your rights, then you must allow others theirs.  Sad it does not go both ways.

Laugh it up, Jim.  Those are your fellow citizens your mocking, you know.