OK, so let's assume for the moment that I live in an "enlightened" country where RKBA applies. Let's assume for the time being that government imposed restrictions on road traffic do not exist.
First, forget about the killer for the moment in the three frames that follow. I want to discuss the "rights" of the victim. I want to discuss the reaction of the lady standing on the footpath. It could be a scene from any American corner store. It could be anywhere from Alaska to Florida. It could be right out of Tom Waits' "Small Change" (...got rained on with his own 38).
The question has to be - "What protection would he have gained from RKBA?" The answer to that question is not improved in any way by gun controls, let's be honest about that. It does point up what I see as the total futility of RKBA as it is presented by the NRA and supporters - you know the kind of thing; "big hairy man jumps out of the shadows and makes to rape your wife...
">
In a similar vein, there is a continual pressure for "Them" (the Government) to lighten up on the strictures on road users. The speed limit is the usual one; the "government revenue-rasing law". At this time the vexed question of alchohol levels are in the sights as well with proposals to impose a "zero tolerance level" for under-25's and the same "05" law as applies in Australia and many other countries. The resistance comes from groups who consider that they have a god-given right to determine the speed at which they drive. They have a god-given right to decide when they are p'd out of their tree. So, take a look at the following. The consequences; two dead, several injured, one critically. The two fatalities came from the van; thrown out by the impact. The driver of the van was a 16 y-o girl who was "pissed as a fart". But look on the left side of the photo. There is another vehicle there also badly damaged. It is the occupants of that vehicle, their rights to use the roads safely, that I am pointing up.
So there are two small reasons why, when the likes of TF start prating on about "their God-given right" to do this, that or the other, I start getting hot under the collar.
Perhaps it would be appropriate to suggest that if the paramouncy of the rights of the individual to act as he/she sees fit without regard to the rights of others is to apply then it is appropriate too that they be isolated into their own little society. There they can kill, murder, have state-imposed murder, stop abortions, stop pornography, lie, steal, and cheat, to their collective hearts' content.
If humble and somewhat "socialist" countries are able to exist without those so-called "freedoms" then those who promote the rights of the individual over all others can stay away.
It is probably significant that NZ, the Scandinavian countries, in total 82 countries, all rank higher in "freedom indices" than does the US of A.
I wonder why?
Oh, and the three photos of the shooting are actually from Italy. Not that that fact in any way would change what I have said.
3 comments:
It's a waste of time explaining God given rights once more because you have no ability to understand the most basic concept which separates rights from government entitlements.
There is a huge difference between acting within your God given rights and violating another's, which seems to be your sticking point.
Let's talk about something else because we will make no progress here.
ok.
You have a god-given right to carry a gun. Fact.
Why?
To defend yourself. Your statement.
Against whom?
Your government? Good luck, especially when they bring on the heavy stuff.
Another citizen? Again, good luck. Look at the pictures to see why.
I am not trying to be smart or funny about this TF. I just can not see past the futility of it all. What good purpose does it serve if you carry a gun, and so does averyone else? Is it merely because you have the god-given right to do it?
Most particularly, I am trying to explain why - even if I do have the god-given right to carry arms - I would choose to go barefoot and "naked". If someone wants to take me out they will do so whether I carry a gun or my pussycat.
The second part is the one which you seem unable to understand.
I have, as I see the whole thing, "the god-given rights" to -
* Live in peace with the world.
* To not fear any other man (generic here because some are female).
* To not live in debt to any other man.
* To not have any other man indebted to me.
* To hold without fear or favour the estate that I have earned by my own work.
* To not have these rights limited or impinged by any other man (again generic).
With that as the starting point TF, I don't think that we are all that far apart. The major differences (between me and many Americans, any of whom would be most welcome to come here and debate the point) seem to me to lie in the efficacy and reality rather than whether they are being "limited or taken away by the government".
It is in that last item in my list that the whole point of this item rests.
If someone impinges on my right to safe use of the road, I have two options -
* I can take out my pistol and shoot that b*****d deader'n a doornail.
* I can rely on the (largely ineffective) processes of law and justice to ensure that no road users are threatened by the stupidity and criminal acts of others.
To that latter end, there is a guy in Court here in Auckland at the moment for killing a woman and child in another car in what is being argued by the Police as a botched attempt to commit suicide. What happened to the victim's rights? It wasn't the government that took them away...
Post a Comment