If It Saves Just One Life It Must Be Right

Here's the sort of logic that dictates rights, regulation and way too much else.   According to Uncle Joe and His Excellency any measures enacted which could save just one life are hereby justified and good.

Think of all the people who die in cars, who die because they eat too much, who overdose, who buy the farm base jumping.  By the logic presented, banning automobiles,  over-eating, and sky diving would be just and righteous because that would clearly save lives.

Banning cars is easier than banning guns because you'd be able to quickly identify scoff-laws because only they would be on the roads.  The arguments which seek to limit bullet clip capacity and such would hardly have prevented most of the troubles we had with people shooting people when they shouldn't have shot people.

Perhaps if we go to the root of the problem and ban dangerous lunacy we'd fare better.  Ban any form of mental disorder or character flaw which could result in maniacal outbursts which could be dangerous to others.

To do otherwise, and to oppose such a ban is clearly an indication of callous indifference to the children and their families.

While we are banning stuff, let's ban swimming pools, lousy parents, ladders, and bicycles.  All of these items have been critical items in the death of citizens.

Perhaps we should also ban police and others who have been known to shoot people for whatever reason.  One life saved is worth it.

I'm not really a big fan of guns myself.  I am a big fan of people being able to defend themselves, and I'm a fan of being armed in whatever way if one chooses.  Being armed and being threatening or violent are not necessarily tied together.

What is always a red flag is when people run around in hysterical madness demanding that "something be done!!" while labeling those who question such things as heartless bastards and fools.  I'll agree, a lot of fools have come out of the woodwork on both the alleged sides of the discussion.

It is a happy orgy for professional demagogues.   These people who want for nothing, rarely wait on themselves, have the nerve to preface their statements with "what the American people want" while maintaining a straight face.  I don't have a clue what "the American people want", and I am one.

I'm working on figuring out what I want.  Clearly I have not allowed myself to think in those terms for quite some time.  That is unacceptable.

What a World

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Dog and Pony Show Glut": 

I think the admin of this website is genuinely working hard in favor 
of his web site, as here every information is quality based data.
Stop by my webpage media.   The word "media" was a link but I removed it.

Is spamming a hobby?  Maybe it is done automatically, with such nonsense being generated by software which picks up key words.  Ca this possibly lead to customers for whatever it is they market?

I don't know.  I do know it takes people of suspended sense of values to market in ways that attempt to trick and mislead.  Unfortunately, the realization that this is rule more than exception struck me long ago, before the internet was even up and running.  I found that it is easy to legally walk that line between  out and out deception and legitimate trade, with one foot clearly over the line.  It usually requires the buyer to be one who wants something for nothing, or something beyond his means. So, you have both sides of the trade ignoring reality.


Some think that capitalism is synonymous with tricks and boondoggles.  This is false.  That is like saying that driving a car involves mowing down pedestrians on the sidewalk.  Free trade and enterprise is not the same as deceptive and dishonest trade and enterprise. 

The idiocy is to believe that the number one tool used in the corruption of trade--government--is the entity which, if further empowered, would ensure equal opportunity and transparent transactions.  They've circumvented enforcement of measures against force and fraud by writing thousands of regulations which more often than not serve to promote one interest or company over their competition.  Always those writing the regs seem to enjoy more wealth after some time in office than they did before becoming "public servants".

Coincidence?   

Anyway, thank you, Mr and/or Ms Articulate spammer.

An offshoot of the indictment I made against government solutions to problems largely of their making can be seen in the brazen efforts of Biden, Holder, Obama and company to usurp more power on the backs of those killed at the school in Connecticut.  

Here we have an attorney general whose underlings provided Mexican cartels with weapons which have killed Americans and Mexicans.  The gun running scheme has been kept rather vague as it obviously did not result in anything pleasant.  The idea was apparently to track the weapons.  It must have been carried out for other reasons because none of the reasons I've heard make any sense.  

Biden talks in terms of the 2nd amendment and hunting which clearly shows he either does not realize or does not want to admit that the right to bear arms is unrelated to hunting.  It is about power.  Not about violence or deaths.  

But these are the people to solve the problem and soothe the panic and hysteria they fuel.   

The problem is that people are greedy in that they will sucker for anything if you throw them crumbs.  They are also woefully ignorant to the point that the majority of people cannot follow a simple logical syllogism.  Who is in charge of the organization and content of education?  No child left behind.  We'll be sure they all know how to conform and be pliable fools for the Crown.

I've only see one person in this public theater of the absurd regarding guns who did a decent job refuting the skewed statistics and reasoning put forth by the poster boy of gun control in the US, piers Morgan who thinks he is superior because he's a Brit.  

What Piers and many others do not get; our rights are not privileges granted by kings or Congress.  Their powers are privileges granted by the people.  And such power is limited by a constitution simply because it has been well known for centuries that governmental power naturally grows into totalitarianism and tyranny if not severely and closely checked and limited. That is the distinction between our model and that of the rest of the world.

Obviously I speak in terms of what was to be, should be, should have been.  Today, in this country, people see presidents as kings and DC as a royal court. The fact that they exempt themselves from certain rules they pronounce upon others, are lifelong politicians, and vote for themselves cushy pensions and healthcare which is not subject to the rules their "healthcare reform" placed on us. 

We were told that driving is a privilege, and so is everything else. 

No secret that I disagree.  You don't have the right to be dangerous or abusive to others.  Beyond that you have the right.  Even if it is a thing which demands a show of competency, once demonstrated, then that activity is a right, not a privilege granted by His Majesty.

.