Ah yes, the Progressives have their panties in a bunch in that SB116 would have NH’s streets and byways become an ocean of blood when it would turn us into the equivalent of Vermont in terms of no longer needed permission from the Government to keep a firearm and bear it either in an open or concealed carry. Remember, the four “tells” of a Progressive that hates your Freedom:
- You don’t need that
- I don’t know of anyone who says they need that
- It’s about the quality of life“
- It is the cost of civilization
Shall we judge how to tell that Carla Breton is a Progressive?
Jan. 24 — To the Editor:
I have just been informed of a bill introduced by Sen. Jeb Bradley which challenges the reasonable requirement to obtain a license to carry a concealed weapon. I cannot believe there is opposition to requiring a license to carry a gun, concealed or otherwise.
Yup, “I don’t know of anyone who says they need that” applies here; shades of Pauline Kael:
Requiring a license is not an infringement on our rights. It’s a sensible, non-partisan, non-discriminatory precaution. There is no objection to licenses for mundane things like beautician or even driving a car.
And Carla would be wrong for a couple of very fundamental reasons. First (and least), there IS growing opposition to the idea that for someone to earn a living, they must first ask permission from Government to do that. There are suits against a number of States around the profession Carla brings up: beautician. Want to braid hair? Spend thousands and lots of time on learning things you’ll never use because the “Beautician Guild” (or rather the Board / Commission / Licensing entity who generally is made of up rent-seeking beauticians) often time use their “force of Government” as a barrier to entry to newcomers. Henna artist? Ditto. Eyebrow teaser / cutter / trimmer? Ditto. Frankly, there is no good reason why Government has to choose winners and losers (e.g., permit some to work, deny others work) – let the Free Market decide that. Also, look at this phrase from NH’s Constitution:
[Art.] 2. [Natural Rights.] All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights – among which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property; and, in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by this state on account of race, creed, color, sex or national origin.
To ” acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property” means that one does have to work in one way or another – and in the words of Ian Underwood, words must mean things or words mean nothing at all. If working is a Right, then why must someone beg for Government permission to exercise that Right? Simply to work? Sorry, not buying it and then she continues to muck it up, wordwise:
Common sense would seem to require at least as much for a potentially lethal weapon.
It is obvious that Carla doesn’t believe that carrying (and I bet, owning) a gun is a Right. Well, perhaps she is thinking about the US Constitution’s Second Amendment. But what about NH’s Constitution:
[Art.] 2-a. [The Bearing of Arms.] All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.
As Ian said here on last session’s HB1589:
It doesn’t say ‘some‘ persons. It doesn’t say ‘approved‘ persons. It doesn’t say ‘persons who don’t scare us’. It says ‘all persons’.
A right for which you have to ask permission isn’t a right at all. So the first point, I think, that has to be made regarding this bill is that it takes the wrong approach towards the goal sought by its sponsors.
The right approach would be to amend the NH Constitution: to declare that NOT all persons have the right to defend themselves, or that self-defense is not a right but a privilege, or perhaps to change the definition of ‘persons‘ to something like ‘persons we like’. But until such a change has been made, any 5th grader can see that this bill conflicts with the NH Constitution. It takes a constitutional scholar to miss that.
And in the case of Carla’s missive, it is clear that she wishes to prioritize her sense of “common sense” over that of the NH Constitution (that old fuddy duddy thing, centuries old and full of dust). In this, does she consciously side with those that with to diminish our foundational Law? Progressives have been doing that for quite some time and lately, this has been one of their primary attack lines – the Right to own and bear arms.
I strongly encourage other concerned citizens to reach out to our state senators (and governor) to Vote NO on this absurd bill.
Carla Breton
Stratham
To vote NO is to vote against the precepts of the plain speaking words of the NH Constitution. There are no “ifs”, there are no “buts”, as Ian pointed out so well. There just is. Freedom is not joined with your sense of need (either yours or your perception of what my needs are). Freedom just is. It is not subject to your notions of what it should be for me, nor mine for you. Freedom is a binary operation – either it is or there is none. In this letter, Carla wishes to remove that Freedom to which the NH Constitution speaks. She doesn’t like that some would be able to behave in a way that she disapproves of, triggering the first “tell”: You don’t need that. Because she doesn’t wish to exercise her Right, she believes she has the “right” to demand our elected representatives forcibly limit that right.
She does not. But worse is this example from The Truth About Guns where Mr. Bill Thompson also is against guns but obviously is making up a brand new interpretation and a new Right that I have never read in any Constitution and have never read in either the Old or New Testament (maybe other sacred texts have it but I’m not aware of it:
You and I have a God-given right to live in a safe environment. Owning a gun is also a privilege under this right.
The sheer gall of that? Since the dawn of civilization, life has been UNsafe. One is not born being “safe” nor grows up being safe – life, by definition, IS dangerous and unforgiving. Yes, “civilization” has given us a veneer of “safety” especially here in the US and ESPECIALLY here in NH (not so much in Chicago or other gang related areas). But “God given”? I think not. Yes, he has the right to be secure in his house – but that is to be safe from the Government intrusion (generally violently) at some such time. And at the same time, the Supremes have ruled that police have no obligation to protect you individually at all. So, Mr. Bill, WHO is going to guarantee your safety?
But he also set up, like Carla, a sideways door to redefine what a real Right is and to demote one of our actual Rights to being one of mere privilege by Government allowance. And given the fickleness of politicians, we should NEVER depend on the likes of pretty much all of them to protect our Rights when votes are at stake. But that is what he desires – to subjugate a Right to others’ decisions. And yet, get this: this is a wordsmithing sleight of hand worth of Obama:
However, just as laws are required to insure and protect our rights to liberty, there should also be laws governing our privileges in owning a gun or any weapon of destruction.
Sure, anything is possible when you redefine the meanings of common usage out from underneath others. Sure, our laws SHOULD first protect our inalienable Rights, actions that we have as sovereign people that can be exercised at our whim but do not depend on the actions or permission of others. But Bill, and Carla, wish to use a Hobbesian view of a Right whereby a citizen surrenders ALL Rights to be part of a civilization. To wit – Rights are bestowed upon us by Government – and removed as well.
To them, Rights are given; to us, Rights can only be taken. Once again, we see the philosophical divide that shows that a complete and utter incompatibility between us. There can be no compromise when there can be no agreement whatsoever even in a common definition, that of a Right, that undergirds the essence of our Constitution. For Bill and Carla, there is no right to Self-Defense.
Think about it; If my individual right to own any type of a gun or weapon supersedes our individual right to be in a safe environment, expecting our families to be reasonably secure in our belief that we will not find ourselves next door to someone with 50 assault rifles and 10 homemade bombs, then our basic rights are forfeited.” – Bill Thompson, LETTER: Resisting gun control is for the weak-minded [via dailyrecord.com]
Reasonable logic but built on faulty logic. In fact, go to that above link to read his whole Letter. That is, if you think your brain cells can take the strain. That said, it does seem that the commenters have the right of it; one summed it correctly:
Free men and women posses rights. Serfs, and slaves are sometimes granted privileges.
