You respect my rights and I'll respect yours

(Original Story From http://www.examiner.com/Charlotte/)

In the comments to yesterday's jury nullification piece (yes, I read your comments) Smitty was especially on-point when he said, "The real problem might be toleration, or more accurately, the lack of it. We wish our preferred freedoms to be respected, while applauding governmental crackdowns upon those freedoms we dislike or are indifferent to." Frankly that's been an ongoing hurdle in the effort to preserve and extend liberty. Until pot-smokers and gun owners and low-taxers and sexual minorities recognize that liberty is indivisible and that we're all in this together, we're going to be picked off piecemeal by government officials all too happy to exploit our mutual antagonisms.

After World War II, Pastor Martin Niemöller voiced several variants of the following sentiments in his public speeches:

When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews, I remained silent; I was not a Jew.

When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.

Along the same lines, Benjamin Franklin once commented, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."

It comes down to the same thing: When liberty is under attack, everybody is at risk. But that's not what the politicians and inspectors and tax collectors and police officers say, of course. No, they're all too happy to tell you that the queers next door are a threat to your way of life, or that the gun nuts are a public danger, or that the tax dodgers are greedy and not doing their fair share, or the store keepers are running amuck without entangling red tape, or that the pot heads are lazy parasites who will corrupt your kids.

But once the politicians and inspectors and tax collectors and police officers are done with the queers, they'll happily shift their sights to the gun nuts, then to the tax dodgers, the store keepers, and then the pot heads, and ...

Where were you planning to hide? Forget about it. Because you're some kind of menace, too, and you'll be fresh out of allies if you don't realize that the freedom of people you don't care very much about is just as important as your own.

The sort of people who make up the political class -- the control freaks of the world -- are experts at divide and conquer. They have all sorts of reasons why you should be glad that somebody else is being hemmed in by laws and threatened with prison. Those people are bad -- until it's you who's so bad. What the control freaks will never tell you is that they'd be entirely unable to impose those draconian laws and threats if you'd ally yourselves with those different folks and their peculiar interests to protect their liberty and your own at the same time.

You don't care about your neighbor's gun collection and he doesn't give a damn about your pot farm? So what? If you help each other out, everybody wins. If you don't, you'll both end up losing something you want, or else hiding it in the shadows and hoping for the best.

Keep that in mind the next time a politician promises to protect you from bogeymen who look an awful lot like the pleasant couple who live down the street. Maybe it's time to knock on their door and talk about an alliance of convenience.

Because you're not going to stay free if the only liberty you care about is your own.

I couldn't agree more, freedom is of utmost importance, and involves everyone. For example, if an individual uses their guns to infringe on another person's freedom, by attacking them or actively keeping them in a state of fear without provocation, then that person should have their freedom to own guns restricted. However, just simply possibility that someone who owns guns could act in such a way should not be reason to restrict their freedom to own guns. Similarly, whose freedom are "pot-smokers" restricting. I am not for prohibition of alcohol, but alcohol is much more damaging to public, societal, and personal well being than pot.

The following is a relevant humorous take on the pot issue:

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists"

--Abbie Hoffman, social and political activist in the United States)

School district to let teachers have guns

Reuters

updated 4:33 p.m. ET, Fri., Aug. 15, 2008

HOUSTON - A Texas school district will let teachers bring guns to class this fall, the district's superintendent said on Friday, in what experts said appeared to be a first in the United States.

The board of the small rural Harrold Independent School District unanimously approved the plan and parents have not objected, said the district's superintendent, David Thweatt.

School experts backed Thweatt's claim that Harrold, a system of about 110 students 150 miles northwest of Fort Worth, may be the first to let teachers bring guns to the classroom.

Thweatt said it is a matter of safety.

"We have a lock-down situation, we have cameras, but the question we had to answer is, 'What if somebody gets in? What are we going to do?" he said. "It's just common sense."

Board members estimate it would take first responders nearly 30 minutes to get to the rural school in an emergency.

Teachers who wish to bring guns will have to be certified to carry a concealed handgun in Texas and get crisis training and permission from school officials, he said.

Recent school shootings in the United States have prompted some calls for school officials to allow students and teachers to carry legally concealed weapons into classrooms.

The U.S. Congress once barred guns at schools nationwide, but the U.S. Supreme Court struck the law down, although state and local communities could adopt their own laws. Texas bars guns at schools without the school's permission.

Copyright 2008 Reuters. Click for restrictions.

URL: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26225072/?GT1=43001

Oh what the good Goddamn is this? Are they serious? I have never believed the BS that the pro-gun lobby sells that more guns mean less crime. The logic they use is that if criminals think everyone is packing they will think twice before pulling a gun themselves. But that logic is dubious for a number of reasons--too many to go into here. Instead I will use an example: El Salvador is a nation with more guns per capita than the US as well as the highest homicide rate in the western hemisphere. When I was there in 2004 a frequent news story was that several people had been killed in an attempted hold up of a minibus. What usually had happened was that a group of bandits (e.g. gang members) had stopped a bus at gun point and demanded money. However, one or more people on the bus had their own guns and dcided to "defend" themselves from the robbers by firing at them. The ensuing exhange of fire often results in several innocent people being caught in the crossfire and then being deador seriously injured. This is the most likely scenario people. Not that miscrants will decide not to initiate violence, but that innocent people die in a crossfire.

A chicken in every pot and a handgun in every purse

A powerful pro-gun lobby group in the United States has filed legal challenges to handgun bans in San Francisco and Chicago.

The lawsuits come a day after the US Supreme Court ruled that a ban on the private possession of handguns in Washington DC was unconstitutional.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) says it wants similar bans in other states and cities overturned as well.

San Francisco's mayor says he plans to fight the NRA challenge.

The NRA lawsuit in San Francisco challenges the city's handgun ban in public housing; while in Chicago it challenges a ruling that makes it illegal to possess or sell handguns in the city.

"In Washington DC, or in any state, whether you live in the housing projects or a high end suburb, you have the right to defend yourself and your family at home," said Chris Cox, from the NRA.

"These laws all deny that right."

Self-defence

The NRA is joined in the San Francisco suit by a gay man living in a government-owned housing development who says he needs a gun to protect himself from potential hate crimes.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom said the city would "vigorously fight the NRA" and said the ban was good for public safety.

"Is there anyone out there who really believes that we need more guns in public housing? I can't for the life of me sit back and roll over on this. We will absolutely defend the rights of the housing authority," Mr Newsom said.

The Supreme Court's ruling says that the constitution "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defence within the home".

The ruling enshrines for the first time the individual right to own guns and limits efforts to reduce their role in American life.

"The Supreme Court's decision was very encouraging, but it is just a start," NRA lawyer C D Michel said.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/7478832.stm

Damn it, this is exactly what I was afraid would happen. I don't get this ruling at all. Prohibiting a class or category of guns in not a violation of the Second Amendment. Otherwise, the court should have ruled that the assault weapons ban and the ban on sawed off shotguns was a violation. I am starting to think that I know stray dogs that would make better decisions that Justice Asinine Scalia. Anyway, the point being, I am a gun owner, and I support the right of American's to own guns. But I also support significant constraints on these rights. For example, why is it that one must have a license to drive a car but not to shoot a gun? People that are wishy-washy on gun control seem to be misinformed about the laxity of current gun laws. I like to encourage all of my students to visit a gun show someday just for the cultural experience. I like to go myself, but it is always a little frightening (the scary conspiracy theory militia folk are an added bonus). Most people are shocked to learn how fucking easy it is to get a gun--last year I purchased a ticket to a gun show walked right up to a table and paid 100 dollars cash for a surplus military rifle--no id check, no signature, no questions asked. I also bought 50 rounds of ammunition at the next table. I am glad I am able to purchase the weapon, I love target practice. But I would also feel way more secure if I had had to show some official idea, maybe prove that I had taken a safety class, or had my info logged into some database.

Lastly, for those on the blog who disapprove of the court's recent ruling on executing child rapists because it overturned a state law approved by voters, how does this sit with you? If a state or municipality votes to ban some weapons or all weapons why should the court get to overturn it? (For the record I don't agree with that logic. People vote for all manner of retarded and vile things, and it is only the rule of law that prevents democracy from turning abysmally foul).

US students hurt in bus shooting

Two students were critically injured and four others hurt when they came under fire as they left a school bus in Las Vegas, US police say.

The six were all either middle or high school students and were shot just before 1400 local time (2200 GMT), the Associated Press news agency reports.

At least two people are believed to have taken part in the shootings.

Police are giving few details other than saying they are investigating a theory the shooting was gang-related.

It was not clear if the suspects had been on foot or in a vehicle.

According to local newspaper Las Vegas Review Journal, the six students were shot near a bus stop on "Alexander Road at Walnut Road".

Two are believed to be in their late teens and the others are believed to be juveniles, it said, adding that one of those hurt is a girl.

Two male casualties were reportedly shot in the torso and the others apparently suffered less serious wounds, the newspaper added.

The Las Vegas incident follows a series of gun attacks in other US cities in the past week, the BBC's Peter Bowes reports.

A 19-year-old man killed eight people and himself at a shopping centre in Nebraska, and a further five people died at a church and a faith-based training centre in Colorado.

What the fuck? Seriously. This is the third US shooting story the BBC has covered this week, and I know these aren't the only ones that have happened here this week. So seriously...gun control? For Xenu's sake people! Trust me, I like guns; I dig the 2nd amendment. I seriously enjoy target shooting. I even like gun shows...though the fact I didn't have to show ID the last time I purchased a firearm at one (legally mind you) bugged me a little...which is my bloody point! What the Hell is wrong this country? Yes, most people that buy guns use them safely and legally. But I bet most would also agree to register them, take a training course, and purchase a license without feeling like they were giving up a constitutional right, which by my read actually only allows for a "well regulated (read state) militia", and not that every not job gets to claim firearms as a right tantamount to voting. Bless us and guide us in your wisdom, Lord Xenu.