“Law-abiding” gun owners want to ban guns for anyone who is not them.

Yeah, this is going to work.

In addition, gun owners are not yet another pathetic “marginalized” victim group, some bizarre tiny “culture.” We are not talking about recreational gun ownership. The issue is the universal pre-political natural right to, and even duty of, self-defense. Every man, woman, and child in the US ought to own guns and be deadly proficient at using them.

It’s also about the freedom to own objects that of themselves are harmless and the morality of whose use depends on each individual’s free will.

The author is further under the mistaken impression that it is her job to prevent crimes before they occur. In fact, proper prevention of crimes is done solely via the punishments that the state threatens to unleash upon lawbreakers after the fact. People are afraid of them and through fear abstain from evil deeds.

We cannot lawfully, and need not, deny people rights before they do anything wrong. It is sufficient to demonstrate the efficiency of law enforcement to all concerned by catching actual criminals. If we want to deter specific crimes, the solution is to alter the penal code to punish them more severely.

Isn’t it obvious that Trump is right and Jews who vote Democrat and either idiots or miscreants?

(Far be it from me of course to suggest that they ought to vote Republican.)

Israeli President Reuven Rivlin said:

We must keep the State of Israel above political disputes and make every effort to ensure that support for Israel does not become a political issue.

Outrageous! Of course “support for Israel” should be a political issue, since now any opposition to such support is condemned as “hate speech” and is outside the pale.

This isn’t anything undiscussable. And whatever happened to “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none”?

Trump should be selling federal lands in hopes of privatizing America, not buying countries like Greenland.

In its turn, Greenland should be able to ask to become one of the several states within the US. It’s a bad idea, though: we need more international competition, not less.

Walter Williams writes as if the “devastating problems of many black people” are some natural disaster that afflicts these poor folks against their will rather than an essential consequence of the spiritual and genetic makeup of the African race.

That’s not to say that white people are off the hook.

In order to hang a man, you need a machine, a hangman’s gallows that must be explicitly and laboriously built.

The platform, the pillars, the beam on top, the nooses, the room below for the condemned man to fall down and break his neck, etc.

How did Epstein manage to hang himself in a prison cell, with no tools?

I mean, was there a hook conveniently hanging from the ceiling?

It’s preposterous. Of course he was suicided, i.e., murdered.

Isn’t it interesting that no comic book superhero has ever busted anyone for smoking pot?

Robberies of fiat-money fractional-reserve banks should’ve been Ok with them, too.

Lew Rockwell notes perceptively that the left is morally absolutist:

For example, when it declares “transgender” persons to be the new oppressed class, everyone is expected to stand up and salute. Left-liberals do not argue that support for transgender people may be a good idea for some people but bad for others. That’s what they’d say if they were moral relativists. But they’re not, so they don’t.

Moral relativism went out of fashion as soon as the Universal Church of the Correct was built.

This church preaches the ruthlessly strict Law, and it has no Grace and no forgiveness. A single thought crime, and the priests banish you in the outer darkness as, say, a cursed “racist.”

The church is engaged in fanatical proselytizing, condemning heretics and seeking adherents everywhere. Every country must be converted.

I do not like it, but hey, that’s me, Ok?

Ronald Dworkin writes:

In many cases, however, corresponding rights and duties are not correlative, but one is derivative from the other, and it makes a difference which is derivative from which.

There is a difference between the idea that you have a duty not to lie to me because I have a right not to be lied to, and the idea that I have a right that you do not lie to me because you have a duty not to tell lies.

Perhaps you have an independent (moral) duty not to spout random lies, even if your lies are not believed, because lying is malicious and so a sin which will harm you the sinner. But I have no (legal) right not to be lied to, because you have freedom of speech.

On the other hand, when you and I sign a contract, you have no foundational duty not to lie, if lying is not intended to harm others but simply cleverly to promote your own self-interest. There is no explicit malice, only “prudence.” But I have a legal right not to be lied to, as this would constitute fraud.

What’s the world coming to when a billionaire like Jeffrey Epstein can’t even buy sex?

Most prudes these days are of course on the left.

The masses hate Epstein not because he did something immoral, but because they are convinced that all rich people are crooked and obtained their wealth in illegitimate ways. They dream about revenge against the more successful folks.