Tuesday, April 10, 2012

CSGV: Why yes, your social "betters" should have more rights than you.

Yesterday I repeated Mad Saint Jack's find that Bill Cosby thinks he's entitled to carry a gun, while the rest of us proles would only use such powers for murder.

The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence agrees. You see celebrities should be allowed to carry because they're more likely to need to defend themselves.

Nice to see the anti's explicitly endorsing their aristocratic views. Remember, they don't think your life is worth as much as those of the rich, famous, or powerful. Which is why they like discrecionary issue.

Thirdpower says it succinctly:
So if you're a 'celebrity' (or rich or politically connected), they're A-OK w/ you having a gun or armed bodyguards. For the rest of the 'unwashed masses', they're SOL.

Gun control is discrimination at its core.

Next time you're talking with someone who is ranting about the 1 percent, fat cat bankers, the poor not getting healthcare, or unregulated money strangling free speech... see what their stance is on gun control.

If they're okay with the poor being disarmed then... chances are their bleeding heart for the rest of poverty's problems are either a cruel system of graft or a patronizing paternalism.

And then you have the regulation of Body Armor.

It's a purely defensive technology. The only reason the State would want to restrict armor is to make people easier to kill. You can be generous and say it's just to make criminals less likely to be wearing it, but that goes with the central pitfall of all arms control as it collectivizes punishment.

Via Tam who is close to going "It's a cookbook."

No comments: