As I keep saying as First Speaker for the Pink Pistols: We do not just want gun rights. We do not just want gay rights. We do not just want gay gun rights. We want *everyone* to have *all* of their rights, *all of the time*.

Jenny Everywhere
July 22, 2013
Comment to Quote of the Day – Mark Steyn Edition
[Frequently when I say something like this I get the strangest looks from people. It’s like it doesn’t compute that all civil rights are equal and important. I think they really believe that if I support the right to keep and bear arms then I must be a woman/black/gay hating bigot.

Another one is that since I am opposed to recreational drugs being illegal I must either use them or would if they were legal. It’s pretty rare that I even drink a little bit of wine and when I do it’s mostly for medicinal purposes. I have never even taken a single puff of a cigarette, cigar, or other recreational drug. And I have never paid someone for sex and have no interest in doing so even though I have been near locations where it was both legal and available. Yet some people cannot imagine why I would want those things to be legal if I didn’t want to take advantage of them.

I can only conclude that a large number of people have no principles and they project that onto others. This is of significant concern to me because for a long time I thought that most people surely must have principles but I just wasn’t smart enough to figure out what they were. I suppose it must be a lot like being told there is not a Santa Claus or an Easter Bunny (my parents never lied to me about those things so I don’t know what it is really like). The truth is painful and I’m embarrassed to realize almost everyone figured it out long before I did.—Joe]

Separate and apart from the case that has drawn the nation’s attention, it’s time to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense and sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods.

…

By allowing — and perhaps encouraging — violent situations to escalate in public, such laws undermine public safety.

Eric Holder
U.S. Attorney General
July 16, 2013
Holder wades deeper into Zimmerman battle, calls for review of ‘stand-your-ground’
[Does it “sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods” when the police stand their ground against a thug that threatens them or other innocent life? Or do they have a duty to retreat, as Holder thinks private citizens should, as well? If not then why the difference?

If this is “separate and apart from the case” then why bring it up now? I am suspicious that Holder is of the opinion that self-defense should be deprecated and the Zimmerman/Martin case is a convenient vehicle to further that agenda.

There are hints in Holders words above that indicate he believes all human lives are of equal value. This is not true (H/T to Robb’s Tweet). This is a collectivist mindset which, in essence, regards people as little more than cattle. The meat and milk from one cow is just as good as the meat and milk from another cow.

The thug threating to cause grievous bodily injury to an innocent life has reduced the value of their life to something less than their victim. When one or the other lives are certain to suffer severe harm the innocent victim is fully justified in using deadly force, risking the life of the aggressor, to defend themselves. This is a very individualist rights approach to the situation. The collectivist either does not understand the concepts or rejects them. In their mind damaged meat is damaged meat.

There is nothing wrong with “escalating” in self-defense when in a “violent situation” when an innocent life is put in jeopardy. I have seen what backing down to aggressive animals on the farm does. They get more aggressive because the behavior was successful in achieving their goals. If you can safely do so you must stand up to them, put them in their place, or get rid of them. If you don’t they will rule the barnyard. The same is true with aggressive animals on the street. Either Holder doesn’t understand this or his agenda includes violent thugs dominating innocent people in public.—Joe]

The result of overcriminalization is that prosecutors no longer need to wait for obvious signs of a crime. Instead of finding Professor Plum dead in the conservatory and launching an investigation, authorities can instead start an investigation of Colonel Mustard as soon as someone has suggested he is a shady character. And since … everyone is a criminal if prosecutors look hard enough, they are guaranteed to find something eventually.

Overcriminalization has thus left us in a peculiar place: Though people suspected of a crime have extensive due process rights in dealing with the police, and people charged with a crime have even more extensive due process rights in court, the actual decision of whether or not to charge a person with a crime is almost completely unconstrained.

Glenn Harlan Reynolds
July 2013
Columbia Law Review: Ham Sandwich Nation: Due Process When Everything Is a Crime
[This would appear to be the goal of those that wish to “prevent gun violence”. Government prevents there being a victim by prosecuting people for victimless crimes. An example is the prosecution of people for being in possession of gun in addition to prosecution of people who injure innocent people with a gun.

This makes a certain amount of sense but only if there is no value to the victimless act being prosecuted. The prosecution of severely drunk drivers has little downside because driving while drunk has a high risk of injuring innocent people with very rare benefits.

Even if firearm possession is legal the more laws there are regulating the possession of firearms all the better it is for government to “prevent gun violence”. When Huffman’s Rule of Firearms Law results in nearly every gun owner at risk for decades of prison time, without a single victim, we have serious potential for abuse and even a police state.

In order to claim prosecution of gun ownership is a net benefit one must demonstrate gun ownership has little value to society and/or a large societal cost. Small minds will present an argument of vigorous assertion that this is true. But a more compelling argument can be made that thoughts are more dangerous than guns. For example The Communist Manifesto and some religious books have been used as tools to kill and injure far more innocent people than firearms in the hands of private citizens.

The concept of “preventing crime” is a very risky and dangerous path to tread. We are already too far down this path and we should reverse course rather than continue to, what I fear is, a genocidal conclusion.—Joe]