The Newton school shooting and the recent flu outbreak has only underscored a position I have come to: Americans don't deserve their so called "freedoms".
I recall sometime back during George Bush's presidency reading a comment that A majority of polled Americans (meaning a majority of the 500 -1000 people called at random) felt that that Americans have "too many rights". I was pretty shocked to read that but there it was in black and white. It was probably close to the time that the NSA warrantless wiretapping came to public attention. People's attitude was "if you're not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about."
I'm pretty certain that revolutionary America did not hold such views. I'm pretty certain the the English had such an attitude towards the colonists. After all who needs Habeus Corpus? Who needs "probable cause"? Who needs the state to have the burden of proof? After all if you are "innocent" and done nothing "wrong" then the state wouldn't have an interest in you. Right?
What has apparently been lost on a good number of American citizens is the fact that the Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights, is intended to curtail the power of government and to enshrine that the power of government comes
from the people rather than the other way around that exists on other countries like Australia.
So taking the Australia example where
Johnny boy lauds the power of the legislature to determine what freedoms and rights the people have, The US system is one where the people are presumed to have the right to something until
they via their direct vote or via their representatives decide to give that particular right up.
In the case of the Second Amendment it is (and has been) the case that the citizen has the fundamental right to have a firearm (or firearms). There is and never was an intent to have citizens "defend" or "explain" why they have a particular firearm. They have a right to have it. Period.
Now the same citizen has private property rights. He or she can state that on their particular private property they do not allow persons to carry a weapon. However; that same citizen has
no rights to tell another citizen whether they can possess a firearm off their private property. If you look at much of the commentary surrounding gun control in the US, the latter argument is exactly what has been made. People are saying that since they don't "feel comfortable" with guns, no one should be allowed to possess one. It is an entirely "un-American" argument.
The point of this post is not to simply focus on gun safety, but the overall trend in America becoming "less free".
Exhibit 1:
Bradley Manning denied chance to make whistleblower defence
he judge presiding over Manning's prosecution by the US government for allegedly transmitting confidential material to WikiLeaks ruled in a pre-trial hearing that Manning will largely be barred from presenting evidence about his motives in leaking the documents and videos. In an earlier hearing, Manning's lead defence lawyer, David Coombs, had argued that his motive was key to proving that he had no intention to harm US interests or to pass information to the enemy.
This has become a common theme in the US justice system. Judges deciding that a defendant cannot make a particular defense. Why is the state dictating what the accused (and presumed innocent) person's defense can or cannot be? The jury (or judge) is supposed to weigh the evidence, not determine what a defendant can say in their defense. If a defendant makes an absurd or weak defense that is his or her business. The "ridiculousness" of the argument will be seen at trial and will no doubt aide in their conviction.
In terms of Bradley Manning, whistleblowing is an action entirely dependent on intent. The primary difference between being a "spy"(illegal) and someone who is exposing potentially or actual illegal activity by the government (legal) is "intent". Essentially by pre-empting Private Manning's only real means of defense the Judge has already determined the outcome of the trial.
Whether one agrees with Private Manning's actions or not, one should be disturbed by the actions of the government in regards to his handling and prosecution.
Exhibit 2:
Mandatory flu shots opposed by some health care workers
Out more than 1,000 workers filed a petition to oppose the directive. The episode highlights strains that have developed in the midst of one of the strongest flu seasons in years. Though the government recommends that health care facilities increase the number of workers who get vaccinated, nurses and other workers in some communities have put their jobs on the line by saying no. Their argument: They have medical or religious reasons or doubt the effectiveness of the vaccine. The employers' response: They have a responsibility to protect the health of patients and co-workers who need to stay healthy.
If Rhode Island health care workers skip the vaccine, they are required to wear a surgical mask on the job.
The American Nurses Association and National Nurses United, which represent about 300,000 of the nation's nurses, have not tracked how many workers have been suspended or fired for refusing to get a shot. Both groups recommend the vaccination, but say it shouldn't be mandated and workers shouldn't be fired.
Let's get something clear here. Take New York as an example. There have been a reported 20k cases of flu in NY with 20 deaths as of this writing. There are 8 million people in the NYC metro area. That means the infected are one quarter of 1 percent of the total population.
Unlike the vaccines for Measles and Diptheria and the like which are nearly 100% effective, the flu "vaccine" is only 60% effective. Also unlike those vaccines, the flu "vaccine" must be taken every single year. Why? Because the Influenza virus, like the Rhino virus (responsible for the common cold) is constantly mutating with various new strains appearing every year.
Now take into account that we've seen that the odds of getting the flu in NYC is effectively .25% and that the Flu vaccine is effective only 60% of the time means that with a vaccine you have a .15% chance of getting the Flu. Yet we are firing people from their jobs over these kinds of statistics?
Even worse, it would seem to me that IF mask wearing is effective in preventing flu transmission and since the flu "vaccine" does not prevent catching
or transmitting the Influenza virus, that medical facilities should require
all staff, "vaccinated" or not, to wear masks
if the actual concern was "patient safety".
Seriously. Think about it. These health care facilities claim to have the patient health as their primary concern and their choice is to force people to take a shot that is LESS effective than a mask?
Look, do you think these vaccines are being made for free? Do you?
Again, rather than assert the rights of a person over their bodies (as Roe V Wade did), people are getting fired. Even with a clearly more effective alternative. Worse, the state is getting involved by trying to legally mandate shots. One should not need a "religious" argument to refuse a less than 99% effective "vaccine". Particularly one that is not "one and done".
So long as the "safety argument" can be made
anything can be legislated.
Exhibit 3:
NRA: We didn't get a chance to oppose N.Y. law
Cuomo and legislative leaders negotiated the bill's language behind closed doors, a regular occurrence in Albany. The bill was introduced on Monday evening, passed the Senate on Monday night and approved by the Assembly on Tuesday. Cuomo, who issued a special waiver to avoid the usual three-day window for lawmakers and the public to review bills, signed it into law late Tuesday afternoon.
Whether one agrees with gun control or not, one should be bothered by the fact that legislation, any of it, is done backroom, rushed through the legislative body and waivers created to bypass public input.
And apparently this is "business as usual" for Albany. Looks a lot like the documentary I saw on Hilter and how he ran things. Hitler thought an idea was good. He wrote it, folks knew to "get behind it or else". The public...well the public didn't have a say did they?
You'll note that one of the primary reasons for the rush was to "thwart" the citizens of NY State (the vast majority of whom are and have been completely law abiding) from "stocking up". A blatant disregard for their fundamental rights. All this did was show that the gun people on the far right who were talking about the left's wish to "take away their guns" were absolutely, 100% correct.
Exhibit 4:
Aurora Theater's Reopening Sparks Mixed Emotions
This is not a clear "rights" issue, but about the total emotionally unstable the population seems to be becoming. The inability to face risk, to face obstacles, people who don't like them, etc. Everybody owes somebody something because of how they "feel".
The Aurora, Colo., theater where 12 people were killed in a mass shooting last summer reopens Thursday, with a private event for victims' families and first responders.
But some families are giving the event a pass, arguing that the decision to reopen is insensitive. Jessica Watts lives just a few miles from the theater where her cousin, Jonathan Blunk, and 11 others were killed and dozens more wounded.
"Basically, any time I want to go shopping, yes, I have to see that theater," Watts says. "I drive by it numerous times a week. And it's one of those very sad hard realizations that there's 12 people that are no longer here."
Watts says the Cinemark, which owns the theater, should move the venue elsewhere and turn the existing site into a memorial.
"Insensitive"? This is like the calls to demolish the Newton school. Stupid, stupid, stupid. The only thing we are teaching the children is how to avoid things that make them uncomfortable. To not face fears. Avoidance, avoidance, avoidance.
It is clear that various interest groups all over the political spectrum are using fear tactics to get the things that they want. They are willing to demonize the "opposition", sometimes using coded language like "common sense" (AKA: Only someone stupid would disagree.). I think it would be most fruitful for folks to look at why the US has a limited government and why that is actually beneficial. Freedom comes with responsibility
and risk. Deal with it.
