Feb 15th 2013 - Letter to the President

-


Mr. President,
A few weeks ago there was actually a petition to throw Peirs Morgan out of the country based on his opinions about guns.  You actually took the time to answer this petition because it received the required number of signatures.  Your answer was, that his opinions were protected by the 1st amendment.  Which I fully support.  We do not have the right to detain or deport people based on their opinions (the Federal government already tried this in the 1950’s when its opinion was that communists were evil).  That should absolutely be the case that we have access to our protected rights.

But, I wonder, if as you were writing this reply you took the time to reflect on the hypocrisy that your statement created.  For the crux of Peirs argument is as he states, “I cannot see a valid reason why anyone would need such a gun.”  This is the core of his opinion:  That individuals should have no reason to need any kind of firearm that is black with a pistol grip and can load ammunition storage devices that organize more than ten rounds at a time.
The mere fact that one person has a different opinion only shows that Peirs ideals are just that: opinions.  

There are groups of people, to this day, that believe individuals whom possess a skin tone not of the pink variety should not have the right to vote.  There are others that hold the opinion that certain religions are evil and that those whom worship in them will go to hell and be doomed forever.  All of which we know is irrelevant.  Their opinions and more importantly their emotionalism (feelings) have no authority, because freedom of speech, religion, and right to vote are guarantees in the Constitution.  They cannot be infringed upon just because one has an opinion on them.

Yet, the whole validity of your argument to steal individual’s right to bear arms hinges on an opinion of certain types of firearms.  You sir, appear to be discriminating against things simply for what they are, not unlike those that used to believe that women were not smart enough to vote and should never have that ability (thank god that intelligence reigned and no one has been barred the right to vote based on sex, race, creed, religion).  This act of despising something for its appearance is only an opinion, which has zero authority and right.  The 2nd amendment is a Right and can only be changed by Constitutional Amendment, and your opinion of certain types of guns has no validity.   None.   Any action that would attempt to seize control by opinion of the 2nd amendment is a clear and unmistakable violation of the oath office.

How is it even possible that you can’t see the hypocrisy of your argument?  That discrimination is always discrimination, even if it is against an inanimate object.  But let us not be fooled, your discrimination is not only against the firearm itself, but against a people whom believe in the Constitution.  You are not just saying that certain features on a gun are unacceptable for your delicate thought process,  you are also saying that the people whom have an opinion in opposition to you are beneath you and should be controlled and told what to do and how to behave.    That is, such people have no right to an opinion.  That, sir, is a clear violation of the whole fabric of what this Country stands for and stands up too. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

note 1 - people as property

-
Image
notes for my latest book on politics and life. ...it is imperative to continually point out that people are not property. There is no other truth. The majority of people are mindlessly on the side of "people AS property". They don't even know it. So they let a litany of insanity rule their lives. Ask someone why they think speeding is a crime and they'll say "well that person could cause an accident that could kill your family. You WANT YOUR FAMILY DEAD?!?" … their answer: - besides the fact they always seem to assume the worst in people - government has the authority to stop you from possibly, maybe, in the future, causing someone else harm . In other words: pre-crime. Then ask this same person if they believe government should mandate what time you should get out of bed, shower, eat breakfast, and leave the house.  They will, of course, say, "NO THAT'S SILLY"...because by this point they are screaming; people stop listening. ...
Read more

Free! Free! Free! – How socialism’s free things requires ownership over the means of production

-
Image
Recently Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a professed Democratic Socialist, appeared on Colbert. She made a couple of statements that are pure anti-human, and the crowd, unaware of the consequences of her comments, applauded. Colbert, seemingly enamored (not by her good looks mind you but by his past opinions on the virtues of communism), said nothing of any consequence. None of this, of course, should surprise anyone that is paying attention.  She stated that she believes education and health are basic human rights. So, since, they are basic human rights, they must be freely accessible to anyone that wants them.  Colbert didn’t even ask her, “Well, Alexandria, how exactly are you going to pay for this?” This is because democracies as a whole believe that the outcome of the vote is a moral truth and whatever costs created by the so-called elected officials, is a required condition of participation. If the state requires the users to pay for everything, then the users (slaves...
Read more

What is a Libertist?

-
Someone recently asked me this question. I was shocked. I had come to think the word was self-evident. So I turned to google to make sure I wasn't just a snooty upturned nose type forcing plebs to accept my jargon. Typing "define Libertist" into google and you have to go almost to the bottom before you come into the definition.  Google assumes I meant Liberttist, with two t's. A Liberttist, two t's, is a person that writes the texts that go along with an Opera and this text is called a Libretto. It, dictionary.com, tells me is derived from Libro, or book. Fair enough and completely sensical (I used 'sensical' on purpose because English professors everywhere still think it is not a word. My typing it and publishing it here, prove, gentlemen, otherwise).  But if you take out that second t the word means: one that defends Liberty. Thus my reason for shock, because I had assumed that since the word was in the name, that the clarity and purpose of modifyi...
Read more