Liberty is an inherently offensive lifestyle. Living in a free society guarantees that each one of us will see our most cherished principles and beliefs questioned and in some cases mocked. That psychic discomfort is the price we pay for basic civic peace. It's worth it. It's a pragmatic principle. Defend everyone else's rights, because if you don't there is no one to defend yours. -- MaxedOutMama

I don't just want gun rights... I want individual liberty, a culture of self-reliance....I want the whole bloody thing. -- Kim du Toit

The most glaring example of the cognitive dissonance on the left is the concept that human beings are inherently good, yet at the same time cannot be trusted with any kind of weapon, unless the magic fairy dust of government authority gets sprinkled upon them.-- Moshe Ben-David

The cult of the left believes that it is engaged in a great apocalyptic battle with corporations and industrialists for the ownership of the unthinking masses. Its acolytes see themselves as the individuals who have been "liberated" to think for themselves. They make choices. You however are just a member of the unthinking masses. You are not really a person, but only respond to the agendas of your corporate overlords. If you eat too much, it's because corporations make you eat. If you kill, it's because corporations encourage you to buy guns. You are not an individual. You are a social problem. -- Sultan Knish

Monday, April 06, 2009

Violent & Predatory vs. Violent but Protective


Rachel Lucas has a post with 259 comments (at the time of this posting) on the topic of British compelled helplessness, the loss of their aggressive edge, and their inability to distinguish violent-and-predatory from violent-but-protective. Many of the comments are, of course, infuriating.

Example:
I’m one of those idiots who think we’d all be a lot safer without so many knives around. And it seems the police in the UK (not a bunch of woolly liberals on the whole) agree with me, as they’ve fairly regularly held knife amnesties with the intention of making the streets safer.
At the end of the day, it’s a legitimate philosophical difference - am I safer with there being far fewer guns around to shoot me with, or is the proliferation of guns a price worth paying as long as one of those guns is in my hand and I’m trained to use it? I prefer the former option, and I suspect I always will.
I understand a little better each day Samuel Adams:
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!
UPDATE: And here's the clincher, from the source of the initial quote:
I think this is another crucial aspect of the cultural difference between the US and countries like Britain with strict gun controls. You see, I believe in liberty as well - and the cornerstone of that is the freedom to live and the freedom from fear. Freedom that can only be safeguarded by a gun in my hand and the sharpness of my physical reflexes is a very poor quality, one-dimensional freedom. The widespread possession of deadly weapons by others is therefore a severe infringement of my personal liberty. And, yes, I am being utterly serious.
"Freedom from fear." And where have we heard that before?

Another commenter answered that plea as well if not better than I could:
OvertheCliff Says:
Scotgo: I think this is another crucial aspect of the cultural difference between the US and countries like Britain with strict gun controls. You see, I believe in liberty as well - and the cornerstone of that is the freedom to live and the freedom from fear.
This might be the whole reason this thread is as long as it is. Thank you, Scotgo, for pointing out that liberty, to you, means “freedom from fear.”

Now if I can ask you to please take a moment and think that through.
Freedom that can only be safeguarded by a gun in my hand and the sharpness of my physical reflexes is a very poor quality, one-dimensional freedom.
As opposed to “freedom” that can only be safeguarded by the state, you mean?

Again … please think this through. You seem like a very intelligent person. I’m confident that you can work your way through this. Furthermore, I’m confident that when you do, your eyes will open like Paul on the proverbial road to Damascus.
The widespread possession of deadly weapons by others is therefore a severe infringement of my personal liberty. And, yes, I am being utterly serious.
I feel very sure this cognitive dissonance you’re experiencing is the result of you not applying your considerable intellect to this issue.

Scotgo, we’re not smarter than you. But we’re more free. In fact, we’re more free than you have ever imagined being, considering what you just said.
Not only more free that he's ever imagined, more free than he can ever possibly understand.

And I note that the UK isn't particularly "free of fear" even in its (*cough*) "disarmed" state.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.