Tuesday, March 12, 2013

Rocky mountain highs and lows in the house of unintended consequences

March 12, 2013

I don't know about you but reading headlines these days (especially in Colorado) is about the same as getting poked in the eye with a stick - repeatedly. After 63 days (that's how long the lawmakers have been at their jobs this session) the face and culture of Colorado (I have been a geographically-challenged Texan since 1998) is almost unrecognizable. That whole reach across the aisle thing - yeah - that concept is all but extinct. Sadly, I must report that common sense, reason, logic, intellect, and integrity have vacated the state house of Colorado. It is now mostly known as the house of unintended consequences.

House of Unintended Consequences

What follows are a few generalizations in overview of recent events - detailed posts will follow as new laws roll off the governor's desk. I refuse to sit down and shut up. Just because the president of our senate advises his lawmakers NOT to read email from constituents does not mean I will stop sending them. Further, most will become open letters here, on social media sites and on editorial pages in newspapers across the state and if need be - the nation.

Yesterday, as a result of overzealous democratic liberalism, the second amendment [the right to keep and bear arms] simply vanished with the stroke of just shy of two dozen assault pens in this state. I can guarantee they (I call them Obamarodoans) are not done with the second amendment - the goal is to bury it or at the very least ban the free exercise of it. So far they have done a decent job of that very thing by instituting invasive universal background checks, undetermined tax for background checks, and an arbitrary ban on what they call high capacity (over 15 rounds) magazines that makes just about every semi-automatic hand gun in Colorado illegal, non-transferable and subject to confiscation. The laws as they are written are unenforceable without universal firearm registration which will lead to firearm confiscation. The lawmakers in support of this bill made it quite clear - this is only the first step toward a total gun ban (at least for law-abiding citizens). I have to wonder what democratic gun owning voters have to think about the people they put in charge of things. Would you call that unintended consequences? Make no mistake - these laws are privacy-invasive, freedom-infringing, tyranical overreach which will not recognize party lines in breadth and scope. Equality in action - Democrat/Republican, Liberal/Conservative gun owners all got the shaft - equally. Yeah, this one is primed to get ugly.

Unintended consequence: The gun control legislation basically makes every gun owner in Colorado (resident or not) a criminal - oops.

A while back marijuana was made legal in Colorado - sort of. I have not followed that issue as closely, other than to smirk at the headache it has caused lawmakers. I do not care beyond the fact that we will have more people driving and performing other hazardous duties under the influence. Between people getting high, getting drunk, taking happy pills, hugging trees and texting - well, it can get a bit dicey out there. Call me responsibly antiquated. I do some of the above. I drink. I text. I do neither while I am driving or engaged in activity that requires concentration or undivided attention. Those people that laughably argue they can multi-task - I laughably argue that just because they are capable of doing several things at one time (as most of us are) does not mean they are doing any of them well. I do not indulge in marijuana and so far I have managed to get along in this world without happy pills, although I could have used alcohol therapy after yesterday's debacle in the state house. But I digress, as to the legality of marijuana, I am thinking I cannot be too far off the mark when I say that marijuana, now that it is legal, is probably more illegal now than before it became legal. Put that in your brownie and munch it.

Unintended consequence case in point: I believe it might have been 24 hours before the marijuana law was called into question when the drug via brownies made it into the hands of innocent, unknowing school children - oops.

Today a Civil Union law (I don't know why they don't just call it gay marriage) will sail on through to the governor's desk and the governor will sign it. Civil Unions mean nothing to me other than, again, it will give lawmakers headaches for not researching the unintended consequences of said legislation especially since it is my understanding that certain exemptions for religious concerns failed to get written into the law.

Unintended consequence: Religious organizations will be required to acknowledge same sex unions which is in direct conflict with religious beliefs - oops. This one is going to get ugly, too.

Also making its way via the fast track to the governor's desk is the first step in negating the whole idea that illegal aliens are actually illegal - meaning, they are breaking the law. That's what illegal meant pre-Obama. This fine piece of paper crap allows lower tuition for illegal immigrants (aka illegal aliens). The governor will sign this anti-American student bill - I can guarantee it.

Unintended consequence: I cannot begin to imagine all the consequences of this BS but the first thing that came to mind was the question - is this geological or statist racism or discrimination?

We have Pelosiesque law making in Colorado now. We pass illogical bills into law without reading them or studying the possibility of unintended consequences. Our lawmakers do not even bother to adequately debate the enforceability of the laws they pass. No, we pass the bills into law so we can see what's in them and then spend time and money (tax payer money) trying to make them more palatable to the public and law enforcement, the result of which involves making them even more offensive.

Attorneys! Sharpen your pencils!

Overreaching government is not just a Colorado issue - it is a national issue. The Bill of Rights is under full scale attack in this country and only those of us who know what they [the unperverted rights] are actually get it.

Unintended consequences. Zero accountability. OOPS is an unacceptable response to sloppy job performance. Why do we tolerate it? Well, maybe we won't - I have signed a few recall positions today for all the good it will do.

I believe what is most exasperating about politics gone awry is the sad fact that we get the government we deserve. We vote for it. What we have is decided excess of ill-informed voters who vote their ignorance and a decided excess of non-voters who do not vote for the very same reason - ignorance. Whose fault that is encompasses a wide spectrum.

I will share an example of this. Earlier today, while I was defiantly surfing eye-poking headlines I glanced at comments posting literally by the hundreds on a headline about the Civil Union legislation. A young woman (hopefully youth is the excuse for her ignorance) claimed that "all gun owners cared about were their rights". I admit, I paused, snorted and moved on. But, as you might have guessed I returned to that comment and read it again. She continued by jubilantly saying that she was happy that the state of Colorado was finally (gush-gush) going to recognize that civil unions are a right. Her right.

So yeah, as you might expect - I went there.

Of course, I felt duty bound to point out that the second amendment actually specifically supports my right to keep and bear arms -- I asked her to please point out the amendment in the Bill of Rights that supported her claim. She could have side-stepped the Bill of Rights and made a weak argument through the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness clause in the Declaration of Independence or at the very least made just about as weak an argument using the life and liberty and equality clause in the fourteenth amendment (which is usually pulled out of the closet in defense of this claim) - but no - I got dead silence on that end... Another person later on made the fourteenth amendment argument for her pointedly directing his response at my comment.

So yeah, as you might expect I went there again.

I told him I could care less about Civil Unions. Since the legislature had opened the door - they can deal with it and from what I am reading - deal with it they will. I said since the woman's comment was specifically directed at gun owners that she needed to specifically support her statement. I simply explained that the Bill of Rights (See second amendment - ratified 1791) specifically and in crystal clear language supports my right to keep and bear arms and that I had found no such language in the Bill of Rights that speaks specifically to Civil Unions or, for that matter the rights of same sex couples.

Amendment #14 Section 1 (ratified in 1868) further supports my right while vaguely addressing her alleged right.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So while I (being the constitutionalist that I am) would support (or at least hear with an open mind) the argument for civil unions based on the constitutional language of the equality clause what do you think the odds are of that young woman caring or supporting the more constitutionally specific language that protects gun owners?

Clearly, the general consensus is gun owners should support and/or defend the rights of others without the expectation of reciprocity in that regard. This is what entitlement mentality yields. These are my rights - I don't care about your rights. Equality means nothing if you do not understand the concept of reciprocity.

Basically, I closed my contribution to the thread by offering this thought for consideration - that if lawmakers can choose to ignore the shall not be infringed clause of the second amendment based on the grounds that the founding fathers (in 1791) could not have conceived of an AR15 or magazines that hold 15 or more rounds then I guess the argument could be made that the lawmakers who added the equality clause to the fourteenth amendment (in 1868) could not have possibly conceived that it would be used as the stepping stone to same sex marriage.

Mission accomplished - that part of the thread - died. I love intimidating the ill-informed.

Still, in Colorado - Civil Unions will become okay by state law. Whether that be the case with constitutional law is still debatable. The person who offered the fourteenth amendment argument for the civil union case also referenced the 1967 supreme court decision concerning marriage as a fundamental right but if I remember correctly the ruling specifically addresses interracial marriage or the legality thereof. I do not know the specifics and how that applies to same sex marriage other than through the fundamental clause. This argument is put out there every time same sex marriage enters the debate and the debate is heating up so given the careless lawmaking climate that is running rampant in Denver these days - it is possible that marriage will be redefined - look for Colorado to lead the charge on that piece of nonsense, too.

And finally, I have to say I am dismayed by lawmakers crying foul and demonizing anyone who dares to oppose their actions. The first amendment is under fire because of one such recent instance. One lawmaker had a person incarcerated for sending hateful, racist emails about gun legislation. Yep, this guy was out of line (at least the socially acceptible line) for certain but he is now a felon, will likely be deprived of his firearms and he has lost his job. He is accused of trying to sway or influence a public official. It will be interesting to see how threat/hate/racism by email holds up under the first amendment. Another lawmaker accused a newspaper executive of using threatening language when he simply asked her not to vote for gun control. If I were him I'd counter sue on the grounds of libel or at the very least slander. Once the outcry looked like it was playing well in the media then one liberal after another tried to trump each other with tearful stories of receiving meany, threatening emails from gun-loving conservative constituents. Oh me! Of course, it should go without saying if lawmakers were not threatening law-abiding citizens with liberty-killing legislation, the issue of meany emails might not be an issue at all. Thankfully, a couple of conservative lawmakers countered with the fact that they had received plenty of threatening emails from liberal constituents - their advise was to hit delete and just consider it a hazard of the job. Or they could simply follow the advise of the president of the Senate and not read email from their constituents.

But it's just a thought: Last I checked hate is not illegal nor is racism nor is stupidity or ignorance. It is not even illegal to teach your children to be a hate monger. Just ask the Westboro Baptist Church.

Anyway, I am closing this rant with a simple question still unanswered in my mind. How is attempting to sway or influence a public official, specifically a lawmaker by threat or intimidation unlawful? OK - barring the alleged threats against the person's body, property or relatives. I mean, who writes a lawmaker and says HI! I just wanted to let you know I am thinking about you. Have a nice day! I mean, who writes a lawmaker without the intent to sway that official's thinking on any given issue? And, if you state the fact that if the lawmaker votes a certain way on any piece of legislation that you will not vote or support that lawmaker in the next election - how is that not perceived as a threat or intimidation? Elections have consequences. Actions have consequences. I fail to see how we get from if you vote for that, I will not vote for you = jail. Hmmm...

Unintended consequences... it is food for thought.

Respectfully yours in unfailing allegiance to the USA,
Dissident Daughter
Because: Silence is the most insideous form of consent

No comments:

Post a Comment

All comments are moderated - thanks for sharing.