Justice and Liberty for all?

Is there really Justice and Liberty for everyone?

Or is it just for the few that can afford to have armed guards fol­low them around every­where they go?

Should Amer­i­cans be forced to sub­mit to sub­jec­tive cri­te­ria on who is deserv­ing of con­sti­tu­tion­al and legal pro­tec­tions?

Should we say that based on what we believe is a risk you will be required to turn in your guns because we have deter­mined that you may be a risk.   WE do not have to prove that you may be a risk we just have to believe it might be pos­si­ble.

WE might even begin to say that you fit into a cer­tain group or class of cit­i­zens that might one day become a risk…

You can see where this is head­ed…

It is not incon­ceiv­able that in the very near future we might see a gov­ern­ment that is inter­est­ed in sub­jec­tive assign­ment of risk regard­less of any evi­dence of risk.

When any­one decides to make a sub­jec­tive deter­mi­na­tion that a class of peo­ple might not be allowed to own a gun then that is a prob­lem.

The rea­son why this is so impor­tant is that one word.

Sub­jec­tive.
source

When you begin to make a state­ment such as the elder­ly that are tak­ing men­tal health type drugs do not need to have guns.

Then you have a seri­ous prob­lem.

Many dif­fer­ent types of drugs are used in many dif­fer­ent ways and as such you can­not just make a blan­ket state­ment that a cer­tain drug deprives that cit­i­zen of the right of pro­tec­tion under the law.

WE the peo­ple will not con­cede that author­i­ty.

Peri­od.

I would rather see the democ­rats win in 2020 than to allow gun con­trol mea­sures that will effec­tive­ly begin a door to door cam­paign of tak­ing guns and all our rights away.   One mis­guid­ed bill at a time.

Sure it sounds good to say that some peo­ple should not have guns.

Per­haps some peo­ple real­ly should not have guns but how do you assign that kind of risk based on sub­jec­tive evi­dence?

Once you begin to say that only cer­tain class­es of cit­i­zens should be allowed to have a gun then you have lost the bat­tle before you start­ed fight­ing the war.

We know from OBJECTIVE evi­dence that gun con­trol does not work.

We have thou­sands and thou­sands of laws that pro­tect cit­i­zens from unlaw­ful actions of crim­i­nals.

Pass­ing laws does not pro­tect those cit­i­zens that already are respon­si­ble in their lives and actions.

Today it appears that we have a sit­u­a­tion where a sub­jec­tive blan­ket has been thrown upon all class­es of peo­ple who might be in coun­sel­ing or might one day go to a ther­a­pist.

This should scare all the peo­ple of Cal­i­for­nia …

Any­one that has ever gone to a grief coun­selor or cou­ples coun­selor or any deriv­a­tive of such a broad sub­jec­tive clas­si­fi­ca­tion as men­tal health.

Might be said to be a risk, well you remem­ber that time 30 years ago that you lost your fam­i­ly mem­ber and you talked to a kind ther­a­pist to help you with your grief?

Well, that falls under the new gun con­trol law and well were here for your guns all of them.

Sor­ry, we know that this law was nev­er meant to be applied this way but con­gress should have thought about that before pass­ing that law.

Since they did not see that far into the future or per­haps they did not care to see any­thing beyond that nice steak din­ner after the vote, you are going to pay the price for the short sight­ed elit­ist atti­tudes of con­gress.

Think its not pos­si­ble?

Think again.