Ever wonder why militant Leftists can be so bold in their social experiments? It’s easy. They make sure any associated problems affect some *other* poor slob.
But maybe, — just maybe — that is beginning to change. One State making a Bold Pro-Second-Amendment announcement gives a ray of hope that the momentum is finally shifting.
But, since the Left would deny they do it, let me explain how they insulate themselves from the consequences of their own ideas.
The easy example would be Venezuela, where Hugo Chavez’s daughter is said to be sitting on over $4 Billion dollars worth of assets while ordinary citizens in Oil-rich Venezuela are literally dying of starvation and disease. They now hunt dogs for food in the cities, and the free health care is useless for even the simplest of illnesses, because they have no supplies.
In case you say that’s an extreme example, let’s pick some more to illustrate. Lenient judges and professional race-baiters do not live in areas where crime runs rampant, or where the mobs meet to set police cars on fire. Most likely, they have private security and gated communities. Zarriel Trotter appeared in a video, pleading for an end to Chicago’s violence when he was 12. When he was 13, he was struck in the back by a stray bullet. Zarriel — not the Ivy-League community organizer — is the kind of person REALLY living with the consequences of public policies.
Politicians cheering that abortion clinics will no longer be subject to rigorous standards of medical care, are the ones whose friends and daughters enter slaughterhouses like Kermit Gosnel’s abortion mill. Not their daughters dying from medical malpractice. Not their grandchildren taking a breath or two of fetid air before having their lives cruelly snuffed out. That’s someone else’s problem. But “women’s rights” … or something.
And one of the most obvious ones: why should politicians be exempt from Obamacare?
The list could go on. And it does. But Tennessee is finally making the Left’s meddling have a meaningful consequence. They passed a law, and like all the best laws, it was elegant in its simplicity. Not only that, it was enforced without diminishing anyone’s rights.
Under this law, for example, it is still lawful for a business to post a sign banning their customers from carrying a firearm on premises. That right of the business to make decisions on their own property has not been infringed. But now there’s a twist to make them think twice before posting any such sign.
Quoting BearingArms.com :
As of July 1, if a handgun carry permit holder in Tennessee is injured, suffers bodily injury or death, incurs economic loss or expense, property damage or any other compensable loss on a property posted as a gun-free zone, they can sue the person or entity who stripped them of their right to self defense.
In layman’s terms, any permit holder injured as a result of being stripped of their right to self defense, and their handgun, in a posted gun-free zone can file a lawsuit within two years of the event as long as they meet the following requirements:
- were authorized to carry a gun at the time of the incident
- prohibited from carrying a firearm due to the posting of a gun-free sign
- the property owner was not required to be posted by state or federal law and posted by choice
What this means for the meddling little Leftist is that suddenly, the consequences of the Left’s decisions can have real-world ramifications.
Think of one of the major shootings splashing itself over the news lately. Usually in a gun-free zone. If such a law were in force nationwide this would be a game-changer. Except in instances where gun-free signs are required by State or Federal Law, the decision-maker responsible for posting that sign could be legally on the hook for damages.
I don’t just for the killing sprees done in the name of Islam, either. If someone were robbed — that’s an example of financial loss. If someone were beat up by a handful of street thugs. If you got mauled by a bear. The reason doesn’t matter. If you suffered loss that directly related to being disarmed, the person who insisted you be disarmed now faces a meaningful consequence.
This approach is brilliant. It’s like having a bail bond office in the same street as that lenient judge’s private home. Or making politicians use Obamacare.
Let’s see more of the same! An approach that curtails no freedoms, but demands accountability to those who do!