Quote of the day—Sebastian

Unlike with marriage or protesting (two other contexts where licensing of a right is permitted), the ruling class are likely to remain completely hostile to the idea of the peasantry being armed. For non-discretionary licensing to work, there needs to be broad consensus that it should be non-discretionary, and you’ll never have that with guns.

July 21, 2022
The New Resistance to the 2A
[While I agree with the first sentence I’m not convinced the second sentence is true. It would seem to me that liberal application of 18 USC 242 with harsh sentencing (the death penalty could be justified in some situations) would get us sufficiently close.—Joe]


7 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Sebastian

  1. Protesting isn’t subject to licensing in free states, where did that bizarre idea come from?
    As for marriage, yes that is the common practice, but I see no Constitutional justification for that practice.

    • I thought most cities required a permit for large groups that might block streets and/or parades. My understanding was the requirement was mostly so police could be allocated for traffic control and the general public to be notified such that they might avoid that area if they didn’t want to get caught in the congestion.

      Is my understanding biased by living in Washington state for so long?

  2. “Licensing” of protests should indeed be limited to the permitting of public spaces for the logical reason that we should be able to ensure that say traffic isn’t unnecessarily impeded, and/or we don’t have three groups trying to use the same space at the same time. This assumes that the space is being used for an “organization” for a specific “event”. Spontaneous gatherings of individuals to the point that they spill into the streets is a bird of a different feather.

    As to the “licensing” of marriage. I’ve never thought that the sate had any say over marriage. Marriage is an institution that comes from our Creator. The marriage “license” when executed, is in essence a civil contract between two people, albeit a lousy one who’s terms can be changed at anytime by the legislature and the details of which will be determined by the state in which you decide to end the contract, even if the conditions are far different than in the state the contract was originally entered into.

    • Marriage is an establishment of religion.

      Thus, “Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion” may be read much more broadly than the current view that this means enshrinement or sanctioning of one religion over another.

      • Wall, not really. “Establishment of religion” means the designation of a particular religion as the state religion — as England did with the Anglican church. Recognizing a certain ceremony which is often performed by clergy is not Establishment. Doubly so because not all marriages are performed by clergy in the first place.
        You got it right in your second paragraph: a particular religion given special status. But the “no recognition of anything even slightly religious under any circumstance whatsoever” is a left wing innovation that is not connected to the actual words of the 1st Amendment.

  3. Peaceful assembly shouldn’t require anything. Just as walking down the street. And just like marriage license. The government somehow trained us to think they should have some kind of control over it. To serve some greater good.
    And once again we see lawless assembly sponsored by government in favor of their power. And anything else punished. (J6 anyone?)
    And incest just moved into the educational system. (If that’s what the whole marriage license thing was trying to prevent.)
    The lesson we refuse to understand is that humans are fallen creatures. And cannot be trusted with power.
    Why on earth would we be ignorant enough to give them power over our self-defense?
    Anyone thinking that you should have to get a license to defend yourself and all you love. Is either to ignorant to be in a position of power. Or is just plain evil.
    Neither should be tolerated.
    And no law in America says you have to. Anyone or any law that does is not-with-standing. Despite what men do. They have no true legal basis to do so.

  4. The only context in which we should be discussing the issuance of marriage and protest licenses is that of how to eliminate any hint of the mere notion of a requirement for such. It is not for the state to presume the authority to “grant permission”, by way of a license or any other instrument, to do either of those things. So that conversation is a non-starter.

    BTW, I believe that the concept of a “marriage license” has the same, entirely racist, roots as does the notion of “gun control”. It all comes from the racist/Eugenicist, Marxist, papist, authoritarian, et al (i.e. leftist) mentality, any hint of which has no place whatsoever in a free society.

    Otherwise I’m not clear on the point of the article. Truly “non-discretionary” licensing may as well not be licensing at all, for the only real purpose, ostensibly, of any form of licensing (besides revenue raising) is to place limits, requirements and restrictions on who is allowed to do what, so as to, again, ostensibly, protect the public from charlatans, quacks, hacks, and suchlike. In practice however, licensing has been shown as often as not to be more of a “good o’ boy” system, to provide niche jobs for Senator’s sons-in-law, to freeze out the competition of large political donor corporations, to create more public employees as administrators of licensing programs, who will overwhelmingly then learn to vote for more taxation, and other such forms of rot, social cancer, and corruption, such that, eventually the charlatans, quacks and hacks end up running practically everything while their competition and opposition have become in effect prohibited persons.

Comments are closed.