- KentForLiberty- Home
- Zero Aggression
- Time's Up flag
- Real Liberty
- Counterfeit "laws"
- National Borders
- My views
- Political Hierarchy
- Privacy & ID
- The War on Terror
- My Books
- My Job Search
- Liberty Dictionary
- The Covenant of Unanimous Consent
Saturday, January 30, 2016
There are useless rules, and there are harmful rules. And by rules I mean policies, or laws, or whatever people call words strung together in an attempt to control others.
I would like to call useless rules "pointless rules", but I can see the point of some of the useless rules, even as I also see that they can't fulfill their point.
Impaired driving laws are useless. If you don't believe me, just ask my daughter Cheyenne. Oh, wait, you can't because she died in spite of "laws" against drunk driving. The rules didn't kill her, they were just powerless to prevent her death. I wouldn't claim the rules against drunk driving are harmful- at least until you dig deeper and see how those rules influence behavior in ways that actually make innocent people less safe on the roads- but they certainly aren't very helpful. And the ways they are imposed and enforced are quite clearly harmful. They give justification to the weak-minded for some of the worst police state abuses outside of airports.
But, on the surface, laws against driving drunk aren't necessarily harmful. Cheyenne wouldn't have been safer if she had also been driving drunk that morning, so although those who control, and would claim to own, the roads did nothing to protect her, they aren't accomplices in her death, either. Suing them for failing to prevent her death would be useless.
Not so where "no gun zones" are concerned. The rules that establish those areas are worse than useless. They are actively harmful.
Not only will such rules do nothing to prevent a bad guy- who would be a rule-breaker by definition- from ignoring the rule and bringing a gun, especially if he wants to murder people, it would prevent those good guys who want to obey rules- even bad rules- from bringing their guns. In this case suing those who own or control the "gun free" area where a murder happens would be the right thing to do. They may not have pulled the trigger, but they are willing accomplices to any murderer who takes advantage of the killing ground they established for him.
You had better believe that if any of my loved ones were ever murdered in a "gun free zone", I would do my best to sue the rule-makers into poverty. If it discouraged just one other rule-maker from making a rule to turn his venue into a slaughter zone it would be worth it.
If you forbid guns in some area you control, you are directly responsible when anyone is murdered there. And I hope someone makes you suffer for your foolishness.