PINAR DEL RIO


support babalú


Your donations help fund
our continued operation

do you babalú?

what they’re saying


bestlatinosmall.jpg

quotes.gif

activism


ozt_bilingual


buclbanner

recommended reading





babalú features





recent comments


  • asombra: One of pre-Castro Cuba’s big problems is that it didn’t appreciate how good it had it, or how much progress it had...

  • asombra: If you want to know what a camaján looks like, look at Lula.

  • asombra: Ah, the Latrine Castro lovers, each more contemptible than the next. It’d be justice indeed if Castro, Inc. fell and...

  • asombra: Sometimes the faux general looks almost convincing. Still, I prefer his Marjorie Stoneman Douglas mode, which is more honest.

  • asombra: Just another bad Negro unworthy of Massah Castro. Move along.

search babalu

babalú archives

frequent topics


elsewhere on the net



realclearworld

The State Asks, “Why Do You Need (Fill in The Blank)?”

Dianne-Feinstein

Not only does busy-body Dianne Feinstein's latest senate bill designed to begin the disarming of law-abiding Americans exempt government officials from having to abide by it, should it become law, but it does NOT have the votes in the senate for it to pass ... democrat votes, that is.

Award winning writer and director David Mamet is a fairly recent convert to the conservative ranks. In the last couple years he has written some very thoughtful and thought-provoking commentary on politics, issues, and the current path this country is on.

His latest is just as compelling, and well-worth the read. Here is a bit...

Gun Laws and the Fools of Chelm†

The individual is not only best qualified to provide his own personal defense, he is the only one qualified to do so. By David Mamet.

Karl Marx summed up Communism as “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” This is a good, pithy saying, which, in practice, has succeeded in bringing, upon those under its sway, misery, poverty, rape, torture, slavery, and death.

For the saying implies but does not name the effective agency of its supposed utopia. The agency is called “The State,” and the motto, fleshed out, for the benefit of the easily confused must read “The State will take from each according to his ability: the State will give to each according to his needs.” “Needs and abilities” are, of course, subjective. So the operative statement may be reduced to “the State shall take, the State shall give.”

All of us have had dealings with the State, and have found, to our chagrin, or, indeed, terror, that we were not dealing with well-meaning public servants or even with ideologues but with overworked, harried bureaucrats. These, as all bureaucrats, obtain and hold their jobs by complying with directions and suppressing the desire to employ initiative, compassion, or indeed, common sense. They are paid to follow orders.

Rule by bureaucrats and functionaries is an example of the first part of the Marxist equation: that the Government shall determine the individual’s abilities.

As rules by the Government are one-size-fits-all, any governmental determination of an individual’s abilities must be based on a bureaucratic assessment of the lowest possible denominator. The government, for example, has determined that black people (somehow) have fewer abilities than white people, and, so, must be given certain preferences. Anyone acquainted with both black and white people knows this assessment is not only absurd but monstrous. And yet it is the law.

President Obama, in his reelection campaign, referred frequently to the “needs” of himself and his opponent, alleging that each has more money than he “needs.”

But where in the Constitution is it written that the Government is in charge of determining “needs”? And note that the president did not say “I have more money than I need,” but “You and I have more than we need.” Who elected him to speak for another citizen?

It is not the constitutional prerogative of the Government to determine needs. One person may need (or want) more leisure, another more work; one more adventure, another more security, and so on. It is this diversity that makes a country, indeed a state, a city, a church, or a family, healthy. “One-size-fits-all,” and that size determined by the State has a name, and that name is “slavery.”

[...]

Many are opposed to private ownership of firearms, and their opposition comes under several heads. Their specific objections are answerable retail, but a wholesale response is that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. On a lower level of abstraction, there are more than 2 million instances a year of the armed citizen deterring or stopping armed criminals; a number four times that of all crimes involving firearms.

The Left loves a phantom statistic that a firearm in the hands of a citizen is X times more likely to cause accidental damage than to be used in the prevention of crime, but what is there about criminals that ensures that their gun use is accident-free? If, indeed, a firearm were more dangerous to its possessors than to potential aggressors, would it not make sense for the government to arm all criminals, and let them accidentally shoot themselves? Is this absurd? Yes, and yet the government, of course, is arming criminals.

Violence by firearms is most prevalent in big cities with the strictest gun laws. In Chicago and Washington, D.C., for example, it is only the criminals who have guns, the law-abiding populace having been disarmed, and so crime runs riot.

[...]

But President Obama, it seems, does.

He has just passed a bill that extends to him and his family protection, around the clock and for life, by the Secret Service. He, evidently, feels that he is best qualified to determine his needs, and, of course, he is. As I am best qualified to determine mine.

For it is, again, only the Marxists who assert that the government, which is to say the busy, corrupted, and hypocritical fools most elected officials are (have you ever had lunch with one?) should regulate gun ownership based on its assessment of needs.

Read in full...

Previous post: "They are Our “Bill of Rights”… NOT Our Bill of Needs"

And if you had any doubt what this is really all about just have a listen to this exchange...

3 comments to The State Asks, “Why Do You Need (Fill in The Blank)?”

  • asombra

    Feinstein is an embarrassment, even if not the worst one on record. She looks like Jackie Kennedy's old aunt Mildred, the dowdy one. It's truly depressing how people like her can not just get elected but re-elected indefinitely, which suggests a constituency of cretins. Of course, the longer they stay in office, the greater their pretensions and, more to the point, their sense of invulnerability, which naturally means they go from bad to worse. Democracy, alas, cannot compensate for a majority of voters who are unfit to vote yet are allowed to do so.

  • asombra

    Why should anyone even remotely care what Piers Morgan thinks about anything? It's like a bad joke.

  • [...] For the last time, it is NOT about sports and hunting. And what don't you understand about "Shall not be infringed"? That 50% public support on anything he plans on doing, particularly gun control, is crap, and [...]