August 17, 2019

SAM’s Compromise Gun Bill That Isn’t a Compromise That is a Compromise

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Nonsense is coming from David Trahan in a notice sent to Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine members that although he is working on a compromise to a proposed “Red Flag” gun control bill that will determine whether somebody ought to be denied access to guns because of someone else’s perspectives on their behavior, he is not compromising our rights given in the Second Amendment. The bill is question is LD 1312.

In his notice sent to members, Trahan says that he has been working with Governor Mills administration to “…determine whether there was a way we could improve Maine law to better identify individuals in crisis and honor our individual liberties as it relates to due process and the constitution.”

Perhaps the best way to “improve” Maine’s law in regards to making a determination as to whether a person is in “crisis” is to stop pretending to act like a god. Whether a person is in “crisis” becomes a value-weighted determination based upon somebody’s perception determined by perverted, post-normal societal values. What could possibly go wrong. When somebody, living in La La Land thinks that a “LAW” can be created or amended that would “honor our individual liberties”, etc, reveals the ignorance of what freedom is all about. Any LAW is a direct restriction on any and all freedoms and cannot coexist with thoughts of “honoring” individual liberties.

Trahan somehow finds comfort to know other false gun rights groups have joined in the discussion to further restrict and water down gun rights.

Trahan assures members his efforts at a “compromise” is not a compromise to a “Red Flag Law.” What’s the difference. Anyone wishing to compromise any portion of the Second Amendment is not a friend of the rights of any individual.

The executive director of SAM is asking members to trust him: “…that your leaders are protecting firearm owner’s rights and your best interests,” and that when he is finished with his compromise that isn’t a compromise, “Maine people will be pleased.”

I have little confidence that he or any others working to compromise my gun rights away are looking out for my best interest. To think that any person or group of persons can equitably determine whether another person is in “crisis” and do it in any fashion that is within the scope of a person’s rights, not just gun rights, is unrealistic and fanciful thinking. It is, perhaps, the greatest tragedy of a person’s rights when others, equipped with political and personal ideologies, attempts to determine the condition in which another person is capable of exercising rights or should be removed from the normal activities of society.

Who in the hell do we think we have become?

Is it that we now believe that employing the evils of democracy we can, while instituting our own twisted, post-normal societal values, determine the fate of others while claiming we are protecting our rights?

Geez!

Share