Part of the ethos of responsible concealed weapons permit holders is to avoid getting into dicey situations whenever possible. We should remain aware of our surroundings at all times. We should avoid getting into unnecessary conflicts. If conflicts arise, we should attempt to defuse rather than escalate them. If some jerk gets angry because he thinks we stole his spot in the grocery store parking lot, we should back down or remove ourselves from the situation — precisely because we recognize the deadly consequences if things escalate out of control.
Hsieh’s strongest point:
Some politicians and pundits claim the Zimmerman case demonstrates the problem with Florida’s “stand your ground” law. In contrast, supporters of “stand your ground” observe that this issue didn’t apply in the Zimmerman case. Instead, Zimmerman drew his weapon only after he was pinned to the ground and physically incapable of leaving.
My concern is separate from the legal issue of “stand your ground” vs. “duty to retreat” in self-defense situations. Instead, my concern is over how Zimmerman ended up in a situation where he had to use his weapon in self-defense, and what other gun owners should learn from that.
Low poverty and inequality, generous welfare benefits, and schools, universities and health care for free. A society in which you are not poor just because you don’t work.
All of them should have been very happy.
Obviously they are not. A welfare check is not a sign of self-esteem. The price of “free” money is giving up your political freedom.
The result? Young men with nothing to do and nothing to lose, standing on the outside, looking in, with a sense of worthlessness, humiliation and boredom. It’s not the first time that such a situation has ended in violence. When this happens in Sweden it shocks the left, because it shows that money isn’t everything. A government can supply you with goods and services, but not with self-worth and the respect of others. A government can fulfil all your material needs, but it can’t give you the sense that you accomplished this yourself.
Whatever the question, a growing segment of the culture thinks the answer is always more regulation of political speech. Do you tell people what candidate to vote for? You should be regulated. Do you avoid telling people what candidate to vote for? You are a liar; you really want to tell people which way to vote, but aren’t admitting it. You should be regulated. Do you spend a lot of money on political speech? That level of spending is grotesque. You should be regulated. Do you spend only a little? The laws are working. Let’s pass more of them. Are you a nonprofit that pays no taxes? You’re getting a gift and should be regulated. Are you a for-profit entity that does pay taxes? You’re distorting democracy and should be regulated!
It’s time we realized that the tax and campaign finance laws that apply to political speakers are designed to prevent people from speaking effectively and that many opinion leaders want to use them to do just that. If we want to prevent another scandal like this from happening — and more importantly, if we want to protect our ever-dwindling right to freedom of speech — we need to recognize that we can have freedom of speech or we can have a regulated marketplace of ideas, but we cannot have both.
This iconic picture of firefighters raising the stars and stripes in the rubble of Ground Zero was nearly excluded from the 9/11 Memorial Museum — because it was “rah-rah” American, a new book says.
Michael Shulan, the museum’s creative director, was among staffers who considered the Tom Franklin photograph too kitschy and “rah-rah America,” according to “Battle for Ground Zero” (St. Martin’s Press) by Elizabeth Greenspan, out next month.
“I really believe that the way America will look best, the way we can really do best, is to not be Americans so vigilantly and so vehemently,” Shulan said.