Chick-Fil-A

Gay marriage is really a non-issue for me, meaning that it injures me not for two people of the same sex to marry one another.  I just don't care that two people I've never met and with whom I've never had a problem decide to marry.  Valuing a free society means that I don't have any desire to stop them from engaging in that lifestyle.

On the other side, the hard Left has really shown their backside.  Living in a society that protects free speech means that you may at some point hear somebody say something you don't like.  The alternative is totalitarianism, which does not respect free speech at all.  Some issues have a grey area.  This isn't one of them.  Chick-Fil-A funds itself privately with its own profits.  It earns them, and those profits belong to them to do with as they please.  If the company wants to donate their money to Save-The-Whales-R-Us, then they have every right to do so.  If the company wants to donate their money to anti-gay groups, they have the right to do so.  It's just that simple.

Every one of us has the right to say they are in the wrong, and I believe they are in fact in the wrong.  However, to deny them the ability to operate as an independent entity by government obstructing their ability to open their doors to clients is indeed an unhealthy reaction simply based on the popularity of an idea.

Respecting free speech means not obstructing ideas on the basis of our disagreement with them.

On top of all of this, the anti-Chick-Fil-A movement has created such a backlash that stores have had lines of people wrapped around the building, and now they have even more money to donate to anti-gay marriage organisations.  Way to go anti-free speechers!

Aurora

July 20th's massacre in Aurora, CO has stunned the nation in horror.  Several days after the incident, the public still has no idea about the motive of killer James Holmes, other than suspicion that his actions stemmed from sheer sociopathic lunacy.  America has the families of those killed and wounded in their hearts and prayers.  But in the wake of this tragedy, I feel called to recognize and revere three heroes who gave their lives to save the lives of loved ones: Joe Blunk, Alex Teves, and Matt McQuinn all gave their young lives to save those of their girlfriends.  The New York Post has a great article giving them tribute.

'Dark Knight Rises' shooting: Three heroes died in Aurora taking bullets for their girlfriends:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/aurora-shooting-died-bullets-sweeties-article-1.1119395

Before the grieving community could even begin to absorb the reality of what had just happened, some have sacrificed no haste in politicizing the issue.  We have heard new calls for, "reasonable," gun control.  On the Sunday morning news shows, amongst others Dianne Feinstien and Ed Rendell renewed their calls to limit magazine sizes to ten rounds or outright ban semi-automatic weapons asking why would anyone need something more than that?  If such legislation would even just save a few lives, why not make it law?  During those same segments, they rejected the idea of limiting violence depicted in entertainment, despite past repeated outrage over Citizen United's ability to produce political movies.  Paraphrased: It's okay to have movie scenes of 'spray 'n pray' firearms killing masses of people, but it's not okay to make movies about Conservative political ideology within the timeframe of an election.

Note that none of those proposing new gun control recognize that neither Timothy McVeigh (Oklahoma City) nor Terry Nickels (Unibomber) used firearms in their acts of terror.  Also consider that John Allen Muhammad (Beltway Sniper) killed ten people in single-shot fashion that did not require a semi-automatic weapon or even a magazine of any size.  James Holmes possessed knowledge and ability to kill without the use of firearms.  Demonstrated by how the authorities had to enter his home, he had knowledge of how to create and detonate explosive devices.  Outlawing possession of a high-capacity magazine may well have changed the manner in which he carried out his act of terror, but it would not have impacted his ability or desire to do so as he seems to have been living out a twisted fantasy of being the Joker character of the Batman movie series.

If I asked any of those calling for new gun control measures why not limit or even ban violence in movies and video games, I imagine they would invoke First Amendment protected freedoms, and they would do so correctly.  They would defend those freedoms as attributes of a free society.  Firearm ownership, even of large magazine capacity, is an attribute of a free society as well.  On the other hand, the inability to acquire the tools one deems necessary for self defense is an attribute of totalitarianism.  Some may argue that a high-capacity magazine does not serve the purpose of self defense, but a free society reserves the right to make that determination to the individual, not policymakers.

Next, we come to the issue ordering ammunition in bulk.  This is simply a non-issue gun control advocates are trying to make into an issue.  People who own firearms should have familiarity with them.  Familiarity with firearms means frequently using them, and that of course requires ammunition.  Bulk orders of ammunition is cost effective, expedient, and efficient.  Outlawing them or putting high prices on them effectively becomes restriction to the access of firearms.

I write this post to make the overall point that Aurora is a tragedy of epic proportions.  Asking if we could have prevented it entails a more complex discussion than just gun control.  But at a high level, that discussion really involves the debate of living within a free society versus living under one that creeps towards totalitarianism under the banner of good intentions.  Looking back upon history of past centuries, I ask the question does humankind live safer within a free society or a totalitarian one?