I’m overwhelmed with joy. I stumbled on this refreshing LTE in reference to the insidious “gun free” mentality. There are conflicting premises floating amongst the primary Objectivist circles. At times, the subject of guns, open or concealed carry, and objective laws pertaining to their uses and limitations seem almost taboo. Specifically, the question of what involving a firearm constitutes a threat of force.

I’m encouraged to find others who see reality as I do, and that I’m not intrinsically at odds with some obscure Objectivist tenet that I’ve yet to integrate.

The NRA is clearly not who I thought they were. To the extent that they persist in their crusade for Florida’s HB503 bill - a bill that enables possession of firearms on another’s property, and regardless of the owners discretion - the association has revealed themselves as unprincipled and obtuse warriors for a cause at any price.

Per their public statements and my private conversations with NRA-ILA staff, their claim that an individuals right to life trumps property rights. Their error is failure to distinguish the right to life, and the right to defend one’s life by use of deadly force courtesy of the second amendment. The former inalienably stands alone, while the latter assumes a corollary right - the right to property.

In the Florida bill, they are opposing the sanctity of property rights as they pertain to a situation where all involved parties are voluntarily present, and most likely bound (also voluntarily) under contractual terms. If an individual’s right to property is subject to the whim of political consensus, then what’s the NRA’s wildcard for excluding a specific type of property (firearms) from such whim? Based on their logic, a homeowner also should have no right to allow others to possess firearms on his property. How can the NRA not see how detrimental such precedent will be? Maybe not until gun owners property rights are trumped by the same premise that the NRA now blindly ignores when a new state bill crosses a Governor’s desk that deems firearm owners have no right to their property (firearms) because such right encroaches another’s right to life.

The counter claim that an employee’s automobile is shielded by his property right fails to consider the overall context. An employees car is (typically) their property, but that car is parked on the employer’s property. There has to be an authoritative hierarchy of rights, otherwise the employer would have no legal basis to tow an employees car from their parking lot. If an employer’s rules specify no weapons on premises, it doesn’t matter where or how, or what justifications, none are allowed - period. If you can’t/don’t accept those terms, attempt to negotiate or find a new job.

Laws and legal enforcement thereof should be based on rights. If an action doesn’t forcefully encroach on another’s right to life, liberty or property, or doesn’t objectively convey intent to do so, it shouldn’t be illegal. The biggest destroyer of personal freedom and economic prosperity are subjective laws - ones that ignore the above prescription. In this case, the employees right to property isn’t forcefully encroached because their presence is voluntarily acceptive of a particular set of stipulations. They are agreeing to a stipulation regarding their property right while present on the employers premises. Therefore, any law overriding this hierarchy is irrational and a detriment to our nation. Neutering a business owners right to enforce his preference to ban weapons is no different than government telling a restaurant owner, who’d otherwise allow weapons, that he can’t. The underlying principle is identical. If you support the fist case, you are supporting the second - you can’t have it both ways.

Not only are the NRA wrong in their stance on this measure, but by throwing phrases like big business and corporate bullies, they’re now bordering on class-warfare, anti-business rhetoric that would feel at home in any DNC stump speech. Heston would be so proud.

The result of any political stance void of explicit premises is nothing more than a pragmatic and likely contradictory opinion. To compromise a fundamental principal for the sake of one that relies on such is irrational. This case is perfectly illustrative of a misguided and ignorant crusade that will serve to undermine the more important cause. The NRA is doing nothing more than arming the enemy (the anti-gun crowd) with yet another avenue of battle. What a tremendous mistake.

I wish this were courtesy of The Onion.

A silly new bill strives to criminalize perception in the vein of thought crimes. Since we’ve pretty much abandoned a proper legal system (one prescribing law based on objective rules pertinent to the protection of an individuals right to life, liberty and property), prosecuting anyone for anything is now fair game.

This blob of insane, emotional drivel would make one who commits “visual sexual aggression” (looking at another individual while being conscious of a particular set of concepts) a felon. The chief do-gooder of this absurdity is Dawn Hill, a Democrat. Dawn enlightens us with her motive:

Her involvement started when Ogunquit Police Lt. David Alexander was called to a local beach to deal with a man who appeared to be observing children entering the community bathrooms. Because the state statute prevents arrests for visual sexual aggression of a child in a public place, Alexander said he and his fellow officer could only ask the man to move along.

“There was no violation of law that we could enforce. There was nothing we could charge him with,” Alexander said.

He attended a talk with Hill a week later and brought the case to her attention. Hill pledged to do what she could, Alexander said, and the result was a change through the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee in the House, which made the law applicable in both private and public places.

Alexander said he’s grateful Hill was willing to take up the cause, and is hopeful the measure will clear the Senate.

“I’ll be pleased that we were able to identify this flaw and take steps to rectify it,” he said.

Under the bill, if someone is arrested for viewing children in a public place, it would be a Class D felony if the child is between 12 to 14 years old and a Class C felony if the child is under 12, according to Alexander.

Hill said she believes the move was necessary to correct what she called a “loophole” in the state’s criminal law statutes. [emphasis added]

We can only presume the “loophole” Dawn refers to was the remnant of objectivity present in her state’s legal code.

I imagine it was terribly frustrating to know that such an atrocity (one individual looking at another one while he could possibly be thinking about something that, if enacted, could possibly be immoral or objectionable to some people) could occur to helpless children. In principle, we should consider expanding the protective scope of this measure to all people (with the exception of white, capitalist males or course). We must take the proper steps to protect individuals from the irreparable damage inflicted when others detect their existence while maintaining a forbidden state of consciousness. If we really wanted to be a catalyst for positive change, we could also ban indiscriminate auditory detection of humans under such mindsets.

With time, we can only hope this intuitive, and clairvoyant legal tactic will be the cornerstone for a litany of progressive laws that would enable government control of every thought, emotion, action and consequence of our lives. Society will then be well on it’s way to the utter domination of existence, identity and causality, abandoning it’s current status as a mere subordinate of reality.

In the interest of full disclosure, just yesterday, while in line at Dunkin Donuts, I actually pondered the taste of a sour cream doughnut without imagining paying for it. I admit it. It was wrong, and for the greater good, I’m willing to pay the consequences.

Yes, I know according to our pathetically over-reaching, unprincipled legal system, he very well could be considered a criminal.

My point is that he shouldn’t be.

Unfortunately, one of many inescapable realities of freedom is that it inherently entitles individuals to do or say things that we disagree with, and in some cases things that repulse us. Cruelty to animals repulses me. If indeed Vick tortured and beat dogs to death - I’d love to see him accidentally fall into a cage of lions for some real one-on-one intimacy with aggressive animals.

However, as much as the thought of torturing or killing animals disgusts me, it should not be a legal issue (except for the extent that I mention below). Laws based on subjective whims are a tyrannical wildcard that must never be dealt in a free society.

Animals have no legal rights. A right is an ethical principle sanctioning an individuals action, and is only applied to rational, moral beings. Animals are neither.

I love most animals in general and dogs in particular. The thought of my sweet natured Chocolate Labrador being confiscated and used as psycho-bait for other more aggressive dogs is nauseating. If that horrible thought became a reality I do support very extreme legal penalties for such theft. Dogs & other animals that have owners are property of those owners - very special property, property that cannot be replaced.

Penalties for stealing another individuals pet should be harsh enough to effectively deter the practice. However, if the cruelty to animals doesn’t encroach on the rights of others (excruciating as it may be) a free country must allow it.

The self-induced damage to Vick’s marketability will probably render the end of his NFL career. It should not however, land him in the courtroom.