Wednesday, January 12, 2011

K Williamson

On the good side of NR...

Hey that one National Review guy that's been writing pro-gun pieces lately?  He has a nice little libertarian (small L) ditty up today that's kinda nice.

Oh to have a day when something like the Tea Party movement actually functions and goes to Washington to severely cut out a bunch of regulations, most all of which are hobbling to about 300 million individuals and help little.  Do you want to even out the political tone, make it less rancorous?  Take gummint out of the equation.  People don't complain vociferously and excessively about stuff that doesn't impact them.  You will always have graft-motivated politicians.  If the cookie jar they steal from is smaller, it's less a problem when they take proportionately smaller ill gotten gains.  When the sand box they think they lord over is smaller, their impact on the people in it is proportionately smaller 

Of course you'd have to re-wire all those busybodies that think it's a good idea to look to the government to provide solutions to daily individual problems.  A light bulb (non twisty) needs to go off over their heads and they need to realize that the 'solution' they've pulled out of their hinder isn't going to solve anything tomorrow, just like the solution they came up with last month didn't solve anything today.  In fact it made things a little worse for someone.  Someone that is now mad about it.  And wants legislative redress...

Stop the cycle.

Some old dude said back in the gray wispy mists of time... "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."  Old dude was right.

The new Congress is supposedly going to attach a justification from the Constitution on where their power comes from in that document to enact a proposed piece of legislation.  Looks like they need an open, unrestricted amendment process in debate so folks can add a part to the bills should render their justification negated because of what the Constitution forbids, too.  That would kibosh Carolyn McCarthy's proposed gun bill (2nd Amendment) and Robert Brady's proposed revival of the Sedition Act (1st Amendment violation), and Peter Kings proposed gun bill and extra protection for his annointed, precious self (2nd and Article 1 Section 9, titles of nobility clause).

[update:  Kevin Williamson is a Texan.  So that goes some way to explaining how the metro- didn't get into the -con]

No comments: