Fisking Media Editorial: Portland Press Herald
Just another Rant.
The right answer has several parts. Most of us would agree that a law tends to be designed to protect people. It can protect rights or freedoms. It’s not controversial to say that a law forms a rule to follow and, properly implemented and enforced, has a regulating function.
Are we also happy to say that a law can be an expression of a value system? That it codifies the standards we aspire to live by? That we pass a law not only for its immediate, black-and-white application, but as a contribution to a body of norms and requirements that, well maintained, accurately reflects where we are and says something about where we’d like to be?
Recent arguments against gun control laws in Maine have been cold, calculated and based on a narrow set of circumstances presented in an even more narrow body of available evidence – two (2) fatal shootings, in Bowdoin and Westbrook, earlier this year. These arguments can only hold up if you think of a law as a linear instrument, some kind of one-off that has no bearing at all on cultural or social mores.
The “gotcha” tone of gun control opponents, newly armed with the allegedly relevant particulars of this pair of local shootings, demonstrates how utterly closed-off this lobby is to any possibility of improved public safety.
According to multiple sources, the law is a codification of the core values of the people. The Ten Commandments are a codification of the major laws of Christianity. The Constitution is a set of limits on government. It does not bind The People.
Using the law to morph behavior is not always a good choice. Most leftist approve of such laws when it morphs behavior in ways they approve, and they melt down if the law moves behavior in ways they disapprove of.
Passing a law making it a crime to “out” a trans student to anybody, including the student’s parents? “Yes!” the left screams. Passing a law making it a crime to hide gender dysphoria and mental distress from parents? “Hell no!” the same people scream.
The Press Harald can’t write without manipulation. (Who am I to talk?) Hellbent on protecting its financial interests …
Interesting how everybody that disagrees with them is a paid shill, or just working for the “gun lobby”. I wish The Gun Lobby was paying us as much as the infringers claim they do.
… unwilling to make even the most modest of administrative concessions …
Why should we give you even a “modest” concession? You have not shown yourself to be trustworthy.
You claim that the gun rights community shows no qualms about using desperately sad stories into political bargaining chips.
Have you seen the blood sucking ghouls that show up after every horrific shooting, attempting to punish me for the actions of another? Have you seen the activists waving the Red Badge of Courage they bought on Etsy at 10 for a $1? Rags dripping with the blood of victims.
All the time, yelling that I should shut up. That my “thoughts and prayers” mean nothing unless I give up my right to armed self-defense.
We say enforce the laws already on the books. Put the criminals in prison and keep them there. Prosecute those that do evil, leave us alone.
I hear your suggestion and offer in return: Take a long walk off a short pier.
That “run-of-the-mill” measure you talk about doesn’t do anything except make it more difficult for the law-abiding. It gives the government information it should not have.
My preferred local gun store is an hour from here. I invest 2 to 6 hours in drive time to pick out a firearm. I invested multiple hours of my labor to purchase the firearm. You want me to have to make the trip at least once more.
And what does that waiting period or background check actually do? Nothing. The Remington 700 BDL in 30-06 I’m looking at doesn’t need to come home with me. I already have a M1 in 30-06. You’re delaying me from purchasing a firearm doesn’t stop me from possessing a firearm. I already have them.
It is unfair that you have printing presses and many people sending you money to write your wrong – minded opinions. Fair doesn’t mean you have to give up your printing press.
My right to armed self-defense comes from my creator. Not you. You can’t take the right away. It always exists. You will infringe to your heart’s content. That doesn’t make it right.
Sen. Anne Carney want’s to make it a crime to sell to a prohibited person, a designation that is being challenged at the Supreme Court. Here’s the thing, it is already illegal to knowingly sell to a prohibited person. What Anne, please her heart, wants to do is remove the word “knowingly” so that if you make a mistake, you go to jail.
Of course, the good people of the Press Herald won’t tell you that.
But the really juicy part of that statement is “very piece of legislation that becomes law does some real good. It helps build a framework for even more protective legislation.
She is flat out telling us that she has no intention of stopping here.
This is what you are arguing for. The mouse eating just one crumb, until you find that you have nothing but an empty plate.
As always, you suggest that we “just try it” and see what happens. We can predict with confidence what will happen. It solves any of the issues you say it will solve. So you will come back to the well for another drink. You will continue until I stop you, or I have nothing left.
