"The Life Line," Winslow Homer, 1884 |
“If our actions result in saving only one life, they’re
worth taking,” Biden proclaimed at a meeting of victims and gun control
proponents at the White House on January 9th.
Let’s stop and consider this. According to the Vice
President, the saving of one life is justification for taking legislative
action which may affect the constitutional liberties of millions of Americans. Not to say
that this is undesirable, but let’s consider a few scenarios.
On Monday January 7th, a California mother was
taken into custody for the death of her 2-year-old step-daughter. Proximate
cause? According to police, she forced the child to ingest chili powder. Who
knew that chili powder is poisonous to young children? The possession of chili
powder should be immediately banned. After all, who actually needs chili
powder? “If our actions result in saving only one life, they’re worth taking.”
In late March, 2011, a Georgia woman was killed by an
injection of silicon intended to augment the allure of her buttocks. Morris
Garner, a transgender, cross-dressing, unlicensed cosmetologist who formerly
served in the military discovered that body-augmenting procedures might be
profitable. So he hooked up with the unfortunate victim on the Internet. His lack
of a license did not deter her, but led unfortunately to her death. Silicon
injections for cosmetic purposes should be immediately banned. After all, who
actually needs to have augmented buttocks? “If our actions result in saving
only one life, they’re worth taking.”
Toledo, Ohio, August, 2011. A 62-year-old women died from asphyxiation
after falling head-first into her city issued recycling bin. It is likely that
Sheila Decoster was trying to dispose of a small bag of recyclables but fell
into the bin and perished from “positional asphyxia”. Clearly, these recycling
bins are far more dangerous than we have been told. They should be promptly banned.
“If our actions result in saving only one life, they’re worth taking.”
A recent Huffington Post article reports that 178 children have been killed by U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and other countries. That's nearly nine Sandy Hooks. Do we hear a cry from the administration to curtail these strikes? “If our actions result in saving only one life, they’re worth taking.”
A recent Huffington Post article reports that 178 children have been killed by U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and other countries. That's nearly nine Sandy Hooks. Do we hear a cry from the administration to curtail these strikes? “If our actions result in saving only one life, they’re worth taking.”
Not to make Mr. Biden sound foolish, but he is. Pandering to
emotion to force political change is the worst kind of demagoguery. Legislation
need be formed rationally, coolly, logically. Costs and benefits, rights and responsibilities must be carefully considered and balanced. We, the governed, deserve the
benefit of the big picture, not the hormone rush of high emotion.
Excellent article ! Thanks for illuminating an issue that needs rational , logical and well thought out .
ReplyDeleteExcellent point Irwin and typical of the big government mentality. While working stiffs have to do a COST/benefit analysis before undertaking a course of action government folk never consider real costs. Hell, they never test actual resulting benefits against the claims. Here's something else they do: Frame the argument. Control is all about how we stop another Newtown. But the Second Amendment wasn't about crime and murder. It wasn't about hunting, collecting nice examples of muskets. If you read the Second Amendment and more important the history private gun ownership it's really about making sure government doesn't own all the guns and the people are at their tender mercies. So, while I would argue that stronger gun controls probably won't stop another mass murder of innocents, and probably will increase the use of guns by criminals against unarmed honest folk, it will increase the chances a repressive armed government will have no resistance from an armed citizenship. Is this possible in the U.S.? Would the American people put up with it? Well, have you seen much in the way of government, federal, state or local, moving away from statism to personal freedom? Democrat or Republican, the trends in the same direction. It's just a matter of speed!
ReplyDelete