Fairness in the Law
Came across this "op-ed" today, which Gavin "Buddy of Shrimp Boy Chow" Newsom is using to further his statist disarmament agenda. http://safetyforall.bsd.net/page/content/bob-weiss-op-ed/
Is the Law, at least ideally, supposed to treat all men and women equally, regardless of gender, race, religion, political affiliation, and most importantly, occupation? The last category is the proverbial sore thumb. You see, Gavin is an elected official, and as such he has a security detail.
So, while Gavin Newsom will seek to disarm every single law-abiding citizen in California , in concert with ongoing efforts in the California legislature, Gavin will not be giving up his armed guards.
That's right. Gavin, because he has somehow been deemed "special", will still be adequately protected by people with guns. The rest of the population will be at the mercy of 911. The proposed laws Newsom pushes force an unfair set of circumstances on everyone. The political elite maintain their security details, the proletariat is left to the good graces of overworked and understaffed police forces.
Logically, this makes no sense. Criminals perpetrate crime, regardless of the law. Those who don't want to break the law will in turn be squeezed into a smaller and smaller box, wherein the textual liberty they are guaranteed takes on a hollow meaning. Meanwhile, criminals will continue to operate outside the law, sometimes punished, sometimes unpunished.
More bluntly, the op-ed demonstrates the sheer lack of critical thought by our opponents. If a bad person does something bad, then we must restrict, punish, castigate, incarcerate, and otherwise restrict the bad actor. Laws which ensnare and punish both the good and the bad are not sensible. They restrict those without evil motive, and they are ignored by those with evil motive. Given the above, please explain how Newsom's proposal creates the desired outcomes.
There is no impact on the outcomes. Gavin will create a multi-tiered "security" privilege (he gets security and guns, we get nothing), inherently unfair and unjust. At the same time, with outcomes unaltered by any significant margin, Gavin et al gain advantage and power over the non-elites, to further impose their will upon the masses. "Give them an inch and they'll take a mile" grossly underestimates the problem. The reality is more akin to "You can vote yourself into the Gulag, but you can't vote yourself out of the Gulag."
And all of this ignores the liberty argument - that is fodder for another day. Stopping at the idea of creating unjust laws, we are reminded that men and women, far smarter and better than I, have repeatedly reminded us that an unjust law is no law at all. An unjust law is oppression wrapped in the cloak of democratic mob rule, stripped of republican safeguards (please note the intentional small 'r') put in place in the late 18th century.
You, dear voter, ignore these safeguards at your own peril. I will not vote for the Gulag. I will not vote to infringe on others. I will not vote to punish the good for the acts of the bad to comfort a grieving, misguided, and exploited parent. I will, until the day I draw my last breath, accept that life is dangerous and unpredictable when accompanied by maximum liberty. I will also accept that life is more dangerous and unpredictable when accompanied by mob rule and the destruction of liberty. Do not be fooled. There is no security in the State apparatus, only false promises.