Libertarian Commentary, 6JAN2016, #16-01E By Nathan Barton
There are many stories in the last few days about this grand pronouncement by the Crier-in-Chief; this one has images of a White House document, provided by The Blaze. There are a LOT of comments that could be made, but here are my first thoughts:
A Baker’s Dozen ™ Thoughts about the great 2016 executive action gun control
1. NONE of these actions would have done ANYthing to prevent ANY of the last dozen or so mass shootings, including Sandy Hook, San Bernardino, that one in Washington State, or the one in Colorado Springs.
2. None of these are based on ANY authority of the Executive Branch, especially without consultation with and approval by Congress.
3. Most of these are eyewash: they have little or no substance but look (sound) good.
4. Those that DO have substance violate basic human rights, such as “innocent until proven guilty.”
5. They amount, together, to a grab for more power by federal agencies.
6. Many of these have been implemented by states (such as California) where they have demonstrated NO significant effect on anything. (Except freedom. ML)
7. Too many pundits and those who claim to be lovers of liberty are going on a tear about this, hyperventilating and screaming. What are they missing in the meantime?
8. None of these would have prevented the current occupation at Mahleur NWR in Oregon.
9. ALL of these violate the letter AND intent of the Second Amendment.
10. Yeah, he can act really good, can’t he? (Crocodile tears, indeed.)
11. You wanna bet that Congress will roll over on this, just like on the budget?
12. You wanna bet that the Courts will roll over on this, just like on same-sex “marriage,” and everything else?
13. More “executive action” will be showing up sooner than later.
Just for the record: the Constitution and Government did NOT give us the right to keep and bear arms: the Constitution RECOGNIZED a God-given right and keeps (supposedly) the government from STEALING that right away.
It is interesting to note that even the legal fiction of “executive orders” (imperial decrees) is not being used this time. These are “interpretations” and “regulatory initiatives” – the FedGov equivalent of the “POTUS” (pontiff) speaking ex cathedra from the throne.
Which brings me to this so-called Evangelical “christian, pastor”, as reported by World Net Daily for his column in the Washington Post condemning “pro-gun” as being “anti-life.” This guy is wrong about a LOT of things, especially the Bible, and everyday life. Indeed, I will cheerfully argue at ANY TIME that anyone who truly is “pro-life” and not just “anti-abortion” is going to ENCOURAGE people to own, have, carry, AND know how to use weapons both in self-defense and in defense of others- those very same innocent lives that this guy apparently is only concerned about in the womb. But God DOES give us both the ability AND the authority to defend ourselves against evil, even (or maybe, “especially”) the evil of government. This guy smells to me like a statist.
One of the scriptures he quotes is this: Matthew 5:44 “But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,” which he uses to “prove” that self-defense (especially self-defense using guns) is sinful. There is, first, nothing in this passage which tells followers of Christ Jesus to allow themselves to be attacked, beaten, abused, and killed. Second, even when defending ourselves against our enemies, we can STILL love and bless them and pray for them, and (when allowed to, once we have taken away their ability to harm us) do good to them. We are not to allow hate or vengence to color our thoughts or actions. Third, we are not to initiate aggression against them. We are not to attack and destroy them simply because they are our enemies, and our response to them cannot be simply tit for tat. Fourth, and this is most important, Christ is teaching that even our ENEMIES should be aided by us, even if it means coming to their aid to defend them from those who attack them. Difficult requirement? Absolutely! But in keeping with all of Scripture: Christians are NOT to be pacifists.
On to other news:
New religions? Normally, UFO-fanatics are lumped together with flat-earthers, creationists, and “climate-change-deniers” so just where do we put Miz Hillary? According to World Net Daily, she has publicly stated that “space aliens may have visited” earth. The first time I saw this headline, I thought someone was being sarcastic about her stand on border jumpers. And apparently this is NOT an admission that SHE is a space alien (despite claims by Will Smith et al. To the contrary). Look, I don’t think I really care if she believes in little green men (or giant three-legged death-ray-waving tenacled monsters), but whether or not she is going to include them as minorities in her “diversity” program; and really, her crime activities and determination to become Empress Ming the Merciless. Or am I just being racist?
Mama’s Note: I’m just hoping the space men come to get her soon. If we’re lucky, they’ll take Bill and as many other politicians as their flying saucer can hold. Why not dream a little? 🙂
Genetics? Racism? Is it wrong to claim a genetic background for certain traits (phyical and social) in black communities, while it is right to claim that white southerners have several severe physical and social problems which are lingering effects of the War Between the States? Apparently so, according to the WaPo. Southerners and the descendents of Southerners (but only WHITE Southerners) have “been found” to have heart, diabetes, and other medical problems and therefore social problems because they are the “product” of the rebels who brought calamity upon the South for a century after Secession. So let me get this right: it is “good” to blame health and social problems on your ancestry IF that ancestry is rebel, but it is “bad” to blame health and social problems on your ancestry if that ancestry included slaves and people who came (or were brought) from Africa. Good. Got that straightened out: these people have been cursed (by “god”) for the sins of their ancestors.
Mama’s Note: There are a great many genetic factors involved in chronic disease and physical conditions, but that obviously applies to people of every ancestry. Ever increasing interbreeding among human races actually reduces the problem because the “bad” genes are diluted and not expressed as often. This is called “hybrid vigor” and works as well for people as it does for plants and animals. As for the rest, individuals make choices based on their history, culture and education/upbringing, not genetics.