Just another Rant.

What is a law for?

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.

Here’s our suggestion. Do that and take the “unnecessary” step of expanding gun control measures. Place the “unfair burden” of laughably dry, run-of-the-mill measures like universal background checks and waiting periods on purchases on those law-abiding gun owners. Even if you think they’re merely symbolic, make these safeguards a reasonable condition of gun ownership, a right that has caused America such staggering loss and bloodshed. That’s the only unfair burden at issue here.

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, D-Cape Elizabeth, who sponsored the single piece of gun control legislation that was not doomed in Augusta this year – which makes it a crime to transfer or sell a firearm to a prohibited person – seemed to take a holistic approach to the question of legislative reform earlier this week, telling the Press Herald that the law, while minimal enough in its import, could spur a rising tide. “Every piece of legislation that becomes law does some real good,” she said. “It helps build a framework for even more protective legislation.”

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.

Spread the love

By awa

5 thoughts on “Fisking Media Editorial: Portland Press Herald”
  1. Maine is turning “blue”. We have 2 districts, 1 is the southern half(north massachusetts) district 2 is the rural half still has lots of Americans.. liberals have been bleating about more gun laws here for a long time while flooding the state with feel good policies that cost working people millions. Many good people have fled to more friendly states. None of the control freak laws will fix anything and only make citizens lives more difficult. A couple years ago my town tried to get a retired Marines private gun range shut down because some outtastater transplant “doesn’t like guns”… well it didn’t work. The hippies got together and passed a “noise ordinance “ daylight noise can’t exceed 68db at your property line( of course agricultural and forestry are exempt)… County Sheriff said it is unenforceable, We the People told them your exemption is not protected by the Constitution.. press herald has always been a democrat paper. I think the only way hysteria about firearms will end is if We the People put a stop to it or We the People move to Constitutional friendly states enmass. Let the liberals have the northeast and we will ship ALL the criminals and homeless to thier utopia.. meanwhile We the People will gather and show the hippie fuks what Freedom sounds like…

    1. Curby:
      Curious about the 68dB limit. Was that an instantaneous sound level, or an average? Because popping a balloon would exceed 68dB under the right circumstances.
      Now, if it were an average, that also is not achievable. Simply cutting the grass would be enough to push you over that limit. In other words, not a single property in town would be in compliance. And, yes, that includes the senior care home.

  2. “You will continue until … I have nothing left.”
    Except, many of them wouldn’t stop even then. At that point they’ve become addicted to power, control and the thrill of “othering,” they will keep trying to find new ways to make life worse.

  3. The believers in Utopia who make the trip from educational indoctrination to political power know from experience they are unable to prove their ideology from the elements of reality. What takes place in real time, never supports their objective; to prove people need a powerful government mechanism over them in order to have the utopian dream of the Utopian Elitist.
    Sen. Anne Carney celebrates government advances in the effort to force societal controls on people she believes don’t have the mental capacity to understand her lofty idealism. So taking personal freedom away from the ignorant public, which she suffers and labors against which in turn serves to vindicates the force used by her against them, will create the crisis needed to rationalize its implementation.
    She can’t win on the natural merits of the case so she must build a super strawman scenario using government powers so she can lose two cases and win one, due to fairness and equality. One by one, she advances through the governmental system without ever once actually representing actual real elements of the case in real time.
    Facts and reality don’t matter. A “world without violence” ideology gives her power because of rampant ignorance which has at its core a wish that her utopian dream could, might, be true someday. One less firearm is one more step toward……her having more power over a crisis which is self-perpetuating.
    Excellent article awa, batting 1000

    1. Let me see if I can summarize your (outstanding) comment.
      1. Leftists are really children who just know the world would be perfect if everyone just did as they say.
      2. Their logic and reasoning are generally emotion (or hope) based, not based in reality.
      3. They rarely, if ever, suffer the consequences of their decisions.
      4. The average schmuck who is not an elected “leader” (quotes because they are supposed to represent us, not lead) has not earned their freedoms/luxuries/benefits. Things like flights, personally owned automobiles, and freedom of speech are reserved for the parasites…errr… I mean elites.
      And, yes, it is always being done for the betterment of the human race and the planet as a whole. Those leeches meet in Davos every year, and talk about how important it is to stop airline travel and have everyone eat algae/bug mash burgers in order to save humanity and the planet. “You will have nothing and be happy.” said the person who is sacrificing a single thing.

Comments are closed.