Wednesday, January 16, 2013

Jay Carney's vicious, blood thirsty comment: "If even one child’s life is saved..."

A quick rant in reply to this ass of a Press Secretary, Jay Carney, speaking on gun control:
"JAY CARNEY: If these things were easy, they would have been achieved already. If renewal of the assault weapons ban were easily accomplished, it would not need renewing because it would have happened already. The fact of the matter is the president is committed to pushing these proposals. He is not naive about the challenges that exist, but he believes that, as he said yesterday, if even one child's life can be saved by the actions we take here in Washington, we must take those actions."
What an unbelievably vicious, blood thirsty thing to say.
"...if even one child's life can be saved by the actions we take here in Washington, we must take those actions..."
Really. Why? Because one child’s life is saved? THAT calculus is what you propose to drive the laws that will govern your lives, America?

So you're going to get into a pissing match of tallying children's corpses? U.S. Grant's "terrible arithmetic"  as the basis of law?!

What do I mean?

What if someone proposes a law that promises to save two children’s lives? Must you take those actions as well? What if it conflicts with the plan you proposed? What if they can show more dead bodies would result from your plan than theirs? Do you then get into a counting match, counting children's bodies... what then, the one that produces fewer corpses, wins?

What if I propose the immediate slaughter of everyone who has ever shown a tendency towards improper behavior towards children... anyone who has ever spanked, beaten or leered at a child... that would undoubtedly save more than one child’s life... must we put that action into law as well?

Is that the sort of life you want for your child?

You cannot make decisions regarding people's right to live their own lives, based upon some utilitarian calculus - such a life would not be worthy even of rising to the level of being nasty, brutish and short.

To be civilized, to live a life worth living, requires that you live your life under the rule of law, but not just any set of laws will do. The Rule of Law must be comprised of laws whose foundations and purposes are derived from the need to uphold and defend the Individual Rights of its citizens, and among those rights they must uphold and defend, are the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - and the Right to defend that life, from all threats, foreign and domestic, is a requirement of all the rest, or they must become meaningless whims and nothing more.

Anything less than that will soon be reduced to one of counting corpses to justify any evil imaginable... though for the greater good, of course.


Jess said...

I'm glad you wrote this post. They pretend to be acting for the good of children, but fail to point they choose the children and anything they do to achieve saving them is okay.

If someone doesn't believe this, look at the effort to remove most citizens only real means of self-defense and the demand the same citizen pay for trained bodyguards for their children. How about that? And, they're public servants.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Well said, Van!

CGHill said...

Yawn. Call me when Carney or any of his associate henchpersons in the media use the same argument -- "If it saves one child" -- regarding abortion. Maybe then they'll acquire a couple of molecules of credibility, but not until.

Anonymous said...

Question: do you believe that you and others have the right to own RPGs, bazookas, nuclear weapons, biological weapons, etc without government interference?

If not, what is the principle that allows the govt to regulate those weapons and not assault rifles?

If so...well, OK, good luck with that.

Van Harvey said...

aninnymouse said "do you believe that you and others have the right to own RPGs, bazookas, nuclear weapons, biological weapons, etc without government interference?"

Lol. Question: Do you (and others) understand what question it is you are trying to avoid by asking thses stupid hypotheticals?

"If not, what is the principle that allows the govt to regulate those weapons and not assault rifles?"

Now that's funny, you (and others) asking about a principle. Tee-hee.

Here's a couple things for you to chew on while you try to not think about what the real question is:

What do you mean by 'assault rifle'? And assuming you have some vague sense of it 'being used for assault' (um... gun?), do you think that the Minutemen viewed their muskets & pistols as being something less than useful for assault?

But then I'm assuming that you could or would make use of at least of couple dangerous items there, principles and thinking - sorry if you found that too disturbing.

Oh, here, while you're attempting to figure out how to safely touch the whole 'principle' thingy, you'll love this one: "Forget bans; where are my Constitutionally-protected suppressed machine guns?"

Anonymous said...

Speaking of avoiding the question, you seem to be avoiding mine. Although your link seems to imply that you favor the conclusion that the individuals should have the right to own and use any kind of weaponry whatsoever. Why won't you say so?

The exact definition of "assault rifle" obviously is irrelevant.

Meanwhile, you might be interested in the actual purpose of the 2nd amendement.

Van Harvey said...

aninnymouse whined "Speaking of avoiding the question..."

Yes, you are speaking of avoiding the question. Begging it, actually.

Your question is asked in order to avoid whether or not it should be asked. Not gonna play... see my post here for more on the why.

Before you can 'ask' whether people should be allowed to own some weapons, you first need to address whether or not the Right which the 2nd Amendment upholds and defends, is valid or not.

Then we can move on to questions of what is included in that right and what limitations there might be upon it.

Or as one brilliant tweeter recently tweeted out to twits like you: "I don’t “need” my AR any more than Rosa Parks “needed” to sit in the front of that bus"

As to your link, such mindless idiocy is beneath contempt, though that is apparently over your head. To give it the consideration due, none, I'd say take it up with Locke. For starters.

Van Harvey said...

BTW, it's not from rabid deer or crazed criminals that the 2nd Amendment provides us the most protection from, but from proRegressive tyrants such as yourself.

I don't even need to own a gun for it to fire on all cylinders, it is there, and you are held at bay.

Thank God it's still there.

Anonymous said...

You really are an inartful dodger. But since you don't seem willing to consider the consequences of your beliefs, I will assume you are either too stupid to see them or simply dishonest.

I don't quite see how asking you a simple question makes me a "proRegressive tyrant". You obviously know nothing of tyranny. Or, I'm guessing, much of anything.

Van Harvey said...

aninnymouse said "Or, I'm guessing, much of anything."

I'm sure you are very good at guessing. But how about backing up what you believe?

Before you criticize how a Right should be properly carried out, I think it wise to first explain your understanding of what that Right is.

Too scary for you?

I've got plenty of room here. Go on. Give it a shot.

Van Harvey said...

aninnymouse said "you don't seem willing to consider the consequences of your beliefs"

What kind of fool attempts to consider the consequences of their beliefs, before discussing what they are?

Come on... express yourself... I could use a laugh....

Van Harvey said...

Oh aninnn-ny-mouuuse... come out an plaaaayyyyy....

Oh come on, give it a shot. I promise not to pain your wit by travelling back to Cicero & such. Right away anyway. Here. I'll throw you a bone-

Given your idiotic link, that the 2nd amdt was made to benefit slaveholders, how about you tell us about the 14th Amdt, specifically the PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE?

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The legal beagles at Cornell Law, offer this comment:
"The Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution states that "the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." This clause protects fundamental rights of individual citizens and restrains state efforts to discriminate against out-of-state citizens. However, the Privileges and Immunities Clause extends not to all commercial activity, but only to fundamental rights."

Which is a bit thin, but what do you suppose is meant by 'fundamental rights'? What do you suppose they were concerned that some states might be discriminating about? Against who? And how?

If you don't want to define a right, could you at least list what you think 'fundamental rights' might be?

Oh aninnn-ny-mouuuse... come out an plaaaayyyyy....

Anonymous said...

You can’t seriously be that stupid. Can you?

The 2nd amendment was introduced as enticement to the slave states to join the nascent union. The 14th amendment was passed as part of Reconstruction, after the slave power had been defeated in a bloodly conflict. In the first case, slaveholders had political power, in the second, not so much. Maybe you don’t buy the the thesis of the link I sent, but it can’t be denied that the two amendments were created in vastly different historical periods and political climates.

As to your continued refusal to answer a very simple question, your silence speaks volumes. So, I'm done until you stop dancing around.

Van Harvey said...

aninnymouse said "You can’t seriously be that stupid. Can you?"

I'd ask the same of you, if I didn't already know the answer. ProRegressives are amongst the most intelligently stupid people on earth. You don't come by your stupidity the old fashioned way, by being slow and lacking wit, but through the fundamental premises you accept as givens. You don't believe something because it is (what's the meaning of 'is' again?) true about reality, but because you reeeally want it to be true. It's been that way since Descartes found a way to make that not look like a stupid thing to do. And you come positively unglued when someone dares to ask you to demonstrate the truth of your premises.

Which brings us back to your response. I didn't ask you about the particular amendments that were passed, but about the fundamental rights they were passed to protect. You grasp that right? Of course you do. That is what your first question sought to avoid, and which is why I won't play along with your delusions.

I'll ask again: What were those fundamental Rights? What is a Right?

If you won't answer that, it is because you don't want reality getting in the way of what you want.

BTW, our Bill of Rights was the promise that the Federalists made during the ratification debates, in order to get the constituiton ratified. Congress, as usual, did it's best to not keep that promise, but Madison, who initially opposed such enumerated rights, wouldn't allow them to break their word. And besides, he'd come up with an idea that solved the problem he had with enumerating rights (that they tended to limit rights to only those listed), through what became the 9th and 10th amendments.

Here is the record from Madison first introducing his formulation of the Bill of Rights to congress, and the subsequent debate that gave them the form we recognize today.

Good luck finding any facts to support your premise in it... but of course... it's the other way around with you, isn't it.

Anonymous said...

Oh I get it. You are flogging the idea that rights have some kind of metaphysical pre-existence independent of the laws that guarantee them. I don’t totally accept that, but I don’t think it’s ridiculously stupid or obviously wrong.

So let’s grant your premise. I suppose the right to bear arms is rooted in a more fundamental right to self-defense, which I also suppose is independent of the particular level of technological development of any particular time.

Hm, I am breaking my promise not to continue unless you answered the question. So, OK, one last chance: assuming the above sketch is a somewhat accurate sketch of your views,, does the right to self-defense mean a right to stockpile armaments of arbitrary power and lethality? Or if there are limits, who gets to set and enforce those limits?

Van Harvey said...

aninnymouse said "flogging the idea... some kind of...metaphysical pre-existence independent of the laws that guarantee them. I don’t totally accept that, but I don’t think it’s ridiculously stupid or obviously wrong..."

Wowee, really putting yourself out there on that one, eh? Way to take a stand!

I tell you what, if you give me a simple yes or no on whether or not people do have a right to bear arms (which conceptually is the first issue that must be addressed), then I'll give you a simple yes or no to your question of what is or is not included in that.


I'll even toss in a chew toy (Hey, I already threw you a bone), Rights are a legal/political recognition of the actual nature of man, and without which, he would forcibly be living a less than fully human life.

Under the 2nd Amdt, aspects (plural) of that requirement ("Inalienable rights...") are recognized and preserved against the good (or ill) intentions of our fellow man.

Anonymous said...

I've rarely seen so much effort made to avoid answering a simple question. It's obvious you aren't willing to consider the consequences of your belief, in other words, you refuse to actually do the hard work of thinking.

Van Harvey said...

Lol, coming from the guy who works so hard to evade the question that would have had to have been answered before asking his own question, that is tooo funny.