While I expect nothing less from
The Des Moines Register, I would have thought that with the new editor, who is from the mid-west, would temper, at least a little bit, the far left "liberal" bias that exists at that publication.
In today's Opinion section of said paper, there is an article about the house bill that would expand castle doctrine. For some reason, the liberal editorial board (is that redundant?) has decided an all out attack on the second amendment. They seem not only to take umbrage with
Castle Doctrine, but also with
Shall Issue laws. They believe that the state should allow local control over gun rights. They also seem to believe that liberal guns laws, which extend from our constitutional right, which is an enumerated natural right, not dreamed up, are somehow wrong and will lead to mayhem. Such has not been the case as it has been
researched.
To further inflame things, they claim that the case in Tucson should raise a red flag and cause us to question any "liberal" gun laws. Such straw men will not stand the test from the Register editorial board or such ersatz religious leaders such as Carlos Jayne. The incident in Tucson was perpetrated by a mad man, who had lied on the federal form he had to fill out to purchase the weapon he used. Furthermore, he is crazy and it is one incident taken out of context to support an anti-gun agenda. If we use the liberal's logic for other unsafe and dangerous consequences in our society, what would that look like? Should we ban spoons because they make people fat? Should we ban cars because more drunk drivers kill people than guns? I don't see the "liberals" clamoring for any of that.
What makes them true hypocrites, is that in the same opinion section, we have articles about same sex marriage and how it is a universal right. You can read my opinion of this type of topic
here,
here and
here. Marriage is not something that is defined in the constitution, but somehow these progressive agendists believe it is something that should not be regulated by the states. It should be universal. The same with
abortion, which is nowhere promoted of denied in the constitution (Although I will make a libertarian stand against it based on the Declaration of Independence), but is a sacrament of their cause. While I cannot make a libertarian argument against gay marriage at all, I do believe states do regulate marriage and if you read my piece
above, you can read my solution. That said, being armed is a natural right, in my opinion, not subject to the whims of who is in power at any given time. political winds shift, liberty should remain a constant if not increasing. The problem is, many, if not most progressives don't have the balls to live in the real world and wish to make it safe for all at the continuing expense of our liberties. Liberties to them mean actions free from perceived consequence, which is really libertine, not libertarian. I would also suggest that they believe in the power of the state as a tool for the submission of people to the will of their tribe. My question is, what makes then so sure their religion is any better than any other?
In the end, their agenda is one of a nihilistic statism bred from a self-assured, yet delusional belief that risk is something that is anathema to living in this world. It extends to everything they promote, whether it's universal healthcare, gun control, healthy food or whatever. They do not believe people are or can be responsible for themselves and that the government is needed as a surrogate guardian to protect us from ourselves. Furthermore, they have no compunction about using the force of government to force people to submit to their will. Truly, they are not liberals at all, but progressive, Fabian statists st best. They are also hypocrites, that are inconsistent in their application of liberty as it suits them. Theirs is not an objective view.
Thank you for reading this blog.
From Clifford Thies, Senior Editor:
