Tar, Feathers, and Filtering

You know things in our political climate are getting unhinged when a reasonable person like Glenn Reynolds makes an allusion to tar and feathers.  It seems the Senate says we all need to be babysat:

“While filtering and monitoring technologies help parents to screen out offensive content and to monitor their child’s online activities, the use of these technologies is far from universal and may not be fool-proof in keeping kids away from adult material,” Sen. Inouye said. “In that context, we must evaluate our current efforts to combat child pornography and consider what further measures may be needed to stop the spread of such illegal material over high-speed broadband connections.”

Ted Stevens is trying to build the filter to nowhere, along with his buddy Inouye.   Can the citizens of Hawaii and Alaska please do us all a favor and get rid of these clowns?  I don’t even think there’s a base they are appealing to here, this is just an example of being completely out of touch with reality, and out of touch with constituents.

Dog Bans

I don’t own a dog, currently, but it strikes me that a lot of the same logic used for banning certain dog breeds is similar to that for certain controls on guns.

I don’t believe in the myth of the dangerous dog.  Years ago it was the Doberman, now it’s the “Pit Bull”.  I’m not in favor of regulating dog breeds.  All dogs, properly trained and socialized, can be made to be non-dangerous around people.  There are no dangerous dogs, only irresponsible owners, and I’m prejudiced against any laws that regulate possession of things, which can be used lawfully and responsible, because some people won’t.  I don’t think, in a free society, that’s how things should operate.  There should be a default assumption that people are responsible.

That some breeds look scarier and are more attractive to irresponsible owners is the exact same logic people have used to ban semi-automatic “assault weapons”.   The exact same arguments work against these laws as well: irresponsible owners are not likely to follow the regulations the government lays down, and only the responsible owners will be punished.

Selfish Unconcern

My last “I’m not a gun owner… but” post got me thinking that it’s probably not astroturfing by anti-gun groups.   There are a lot of gun owners in this country, and most of them aren’t activists, nor are they informed.

Most people are rather selfishly unconcerned with other people’s liberty.  If they were, you wouldn’t see the proliferation of smoking bans.  People support smoking bans because they don’t like smoking, and don’t like the smell.  So they want it banned.  They don’t do it, don’t like it, so no one should do it.   Note you don’t see people pushing for farting bans in public, even though public farting is most decidedly unpleasant.   This is because everyone farts.  People understand they could run a risk of getting fined for letting one loose in a public area, not realizing they were dropping a real stink bomb.  People concern themselves with their own liberty, when it comes to the liberty of others, their own preferences will usually win out.

So you have someone with a Remington 700 up in his closet that he used to hunt deer years ago, doesn’t like these fancy, scary looking newfangled guns, that he is mistaken to think that only criminals, nut cases, and gang bangers have any use for, and is ignorant that his 700 is a military sniper rifle by another name.  If he knew they’d be coming for that eventually, he might be more concerned, and more careful about what he says.  But his ignorance and selfishness allow him to bitch about Glocks, and other scary looking guns he doesn’t approve of, because in his mind, it doesn’t affect his own liberty.

Liberty exists as a state where the rights of the individual are protected from transgressions by others, and by society collectively.  It cannot be regarded selfishly.  To be truly committed to liberty, one can’t merely support liberty for himself, without supporting it for others as well.  This means a certain amount of tolerance behaviors and things that you find personally distasteful.

I don’t particularly like smoking myself, and I tend to think other drivers on the road are boneheads.  There are people out there who can barely drive, let alone talk on a cell phone while doing it.  But I reject smoking bans, because business owners should have to right to decide what is allowed on their own property (and don’t give me crap about second hand smoke.  A night on the town exposed to second hand smoke isn’t going to hurt anyone at all, considering you’re probably drinking livery poison while you complain about other people’s unhealthy smoke).  I oppose banning cell phones for drivers (as a primary offense, secondary offenses I have no problem with), because it makes no distinction between people making a quick call, or who know when to tell the other person to shut up and pay attention to the road, and folks gabbing on and on paying little attention.  I don’t go for “punish everyone for the few” solutions to solving problems.

Liberty means having to accept some risk and tolerance of distasteful activities so we can all continue to live in a free society.  The fact that most people don’t think that way should probably not be a surprise, but every time I read one of these “I’m not a gun owner… but” editorials, I find it hard to believe there are people out there that selfishly unconcerned with anyone other than their own freedoms.

Taste The Jackboot!

It’s good to see that crime is under such control in New Jersey that the police can expend so much energy making sure no one can have any fun on Independence Day:

Yet it’s illegal in New Jersey to use, possess or transport fireworks, including firecrackers, Roman candles, M80s, cherry bombs and even sparklers. New Jersey is among nine states that bans all consumer fireworks.

“It was a lot about enforcement, but it really was mostly about educating the people,” Hengemuhl said of the state police effort. “We wanted New Jerseyans to know it’s illegal and it’s dangerous.”

We have to put you in jail.  It’s for your own good, you see.   Look, it’s one thing to ban fireworks in a dry climate, when there is a legitimate public welfare concern, it’s another thing to protect people from themselves.  Pennsylvania bans many types of fireworks, but as far back as I can remember, fireworks laws in Pennsylvania have never been enforced by police on Fourth of July unless someone complained.  New Jersey authorities are now talking about fireworks as though it were cocaine.

It’s high time for the citizens of  New Jersey to take back what the politicians have taken from them: their basic freedom.   If people want to do something dangerous, that’s not anyone’s business other than theirs.

Flashing ID for Adult Beverages

Bitter points out a new regulation that may go into effect in Tennessee requiring everyone, regardless of age, to flash ID to buy alcohol. I would actually be willing to agree to have that in Pennsylvania if they abolished the state run liquor system and I could buy a bottle of bourbon in the supermarket. Can’t make the argument that it’ll encourage underage drinking if you have to card everyone! Whipping out the drivers license is less of a burden to me than having to drive to New Jersey or Delaware to get decent hooch.

Of course. all this is going to do is cause more straw purchasing of alcohol. Pretty soon after that, you’ll only be able to buy so much alcohol in a month in order to deal with the problem. But then they’ll start manufacturing it at home like I do [I should be clear here, I mean home brewing, not distilling.  The ATF already has my number for the F part, I don’t want any trouble with the A part too :)]. And then…. but oh wait, we already went down this road and it didn’t work. It’s a pity folks can’t make the analogy.

Cumberland County DA Drops Charges

It looks like the Cumberland County District Attorney has done the right thing:

“When police are audio- and video-recording traffic stops with notice to the subjects, similar actions by citizens, even if done in secret, will not result in criminal charges,” Freed said yesterday. “I intend to communicate this decision to all police agencies within the county so that officers on the street are better-prepared to handle a similar situation should it arise again.”

Excellent.

Via Instapundit 

Drink From Your Sippy Cup!

It always astonishes me what lengths the nanny state politicians will go to in order to control your life.   Bruce links to this article n the Boston Globe which has me quite literally speechless.

People of Massachusetts: You started a war over less than this.  What happened?

And then they came for my kegerator…

Wow! This is really crazy:

Alcohol is haram, or forbidden, to Muslims. As London is above the national average for alcohol-related deaths in males, with 17.6 per 100,000 people (Camden has 31.6 per 100,000 males), turning all the city’s pubs into juice bars would have a massive positive effect on public health. Forbid alcohol throughout the country, and you’d avoid many of the 22,000 alcohol-related deaths and the £7.3 billion national bill for alcohol-related crime and disorder each year.

I reserve the right to shoot any officer of the Islamic Caliphate who dares come to confiscate my beer tap. And I will too! There are some lines you just don’t cross :)