Quote of the day—Jonathan Lowy

Judge Kavanaugh must tell the American public whether he will protect their most important right — the right to be safe from gun violence.

Jonathan Lowy
Vice president of litigation at the Brady Campaign and Center to Prevent Gun Violence
July 26, 2018
With Kavanaugh, Court Could Take Aim at Gun Control Laws
[Lowy must believe he is in some alternate universe. In the universe I live in no such right exists. It sounds to me like he is advocating for the “right” of criminals and tyrants to “practice their trade” without fear of meaningful opposition.—Joe]

8 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Jonathan Lowy

  1. We need to abolish 2A and replace it with:
    A feeling of peace and serenity being a responsibility of a nanny government, the right of the people to live in a fantasy protective bubble shall not be infringed.

  2. IANAL. However, I seem to recall that if a judge makes a public statement regrading how he or she would decide on a given issue or case likely to be heard by him or her, it would be an ethics violation. These demands “that we need to know how Judge Kavanaugh will decide on x” are to quote the Bard of
    Avon, “sound and fury signifying nothing.”

  3. You can take each article and clause from the Bill of Rights, and turn it into an anti-right in the same manner;

    We have a “right” to be “free” FROM painful speech, FROM uncomfortable religious assertions, FROM the irritating influence of the press, etc., etc.

    Obama said it best when he described the Bill of Rights as a “Charter of Negative Rights”. His mindset, which is as old as the hills, believes that there should be no limits on wholesale coercion, that government should be “free” to do whatever it wants, even saying, literally, that it is government’s “right” to be “free” from any and all limitations.

    Thus, liberty is slavery. The criminal class, of course, wants the “freedom” FROM that which it right. Their organizations preach, accordingly, that God is the tyrant, Mary (the post-Constantinian version of Isis), bizarrely, is the “mother of god” who can intercede to protect you from the wrath of Jesus, and they believe that Lucifer (“the wronged one”), is their “bringer of light”. Citations abound;
    https://amazingdiscoveries.tv/c/2/Total_Onslaught_-_English/

    We’re not dealing with a “godless” or atheistic confederacy. Far from it. It’s actually much worse than that. They have everything turned upside-down and backwards. It’s the Babylonian (and ancient Egyptian, and Roman) model and the whole world runs on it.

  4. The misconception that any group has rights, which are inherent only to individuals, is the basis of much confusion among the Left. Were they to return to the correct concept that individual rights are the basis of our country’s culture and government, the Left would avoid much that they get wrong, repeatedly.

  5. What is a right? It is a freedom to act on the party of the first part, and a duty imposed upon parties second and third part to not to interfere upon that freedom to act, in the presence of the equal freedom of others to act without hindrance.

    It is the duty on the everyone not to interfere in the in the peaceful pursuits of others.

    Kurt

  6. The whole comment is vacuous nonsense, of course. But consider it for a second. The “right” to be free from criminal violence? No. The right to be free of any violence? No.

    Because they fetishize guns, its only a “right” to be free of gun violence, even if employed in self defense.

    Utterly insane.

  7. I’ll admit that I’m getting tired of this newfangled phraseology, saying “you must do this” when what is meant is “I strenuously want you to do this”.

    To me, the proper response to “you must do this”, in a case like this, is “and if I don’t, who will make me?”

    This is an attempt to use words to coerce, with nothing at all behind them. Those words have as much coercive power as we let them have.

  8. “…..he will protect their most important right — the right to be safe from gun violence.

    Actually, I think this may be substantially correct; can Kavanaugh – or anyone else on SCOTUS – provide absolute protection from violence, of any type? Of course not. To think that is delusional folly, of which there is no shortage on the Left.

    But can Kavanaugh, and SCOTUS, provide assistance toward some degree of violence protection through reducing it? I think so, in the form of recognizing the full authority and scope of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution: “An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life,” Robert A. Heinlein.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.