I don't care if libertine MSM types are "aghast" by the notion of gun-owners exercising their constitutional rights. It's fine for anti-gun groups to refuse to buy guns, speak out against guns, and refuse to associate with anyone who has so much as gone hunting. But they are NOT entitled to forcefully seize the property of law-abiding Americans. Indeed, any and all aggressive force is illegitimate.
However, the clip below indicates that leftists are eagerly willing to use such means to impose their values on us. While their intentions may be pure, they are unwittingly advocating the sort of aggressive violence they supposedly deplore. Are these folks simply busy bodies, or is this indicative of a budding "Blue State Fascism?" (That is, "conform to our lifestyle or be punished!")
It may not yet be as dangerous as its counterpart, but it's closing in fast.
(Thanks to LewRockwell.com for the clip and the title inspiration)
Oh yeah...this clip was entirely ridiculous too. I thought about posting it but didn't get around to it -- thanks for getting it up.
The best part of this is the obvious fear and complete incomprehension of the possibility that carrying a gun could be a good thing: the reporter in NH is panicky and can't talk fast enough, and the woman in the studio starts whining about "why can't we just get rid of him?" I'd say that's probably because we can't just "get rid of" people who haven't actually done anything wrong. Or at least we're not supposed to.
You cannot aggress against the innocent, even to fulfill some grand utilitarian "end."
And the ends they envision suck anyway. More guns=less crime. Just look at how low fully-armed (not that I advocated pro-gun coercion) Switzerland's crime rate is.
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html
I found the perfect place for my needs. Contains wonderful and useful messages. I have read most of them and has a lot of them. To me, he's doing the great work.
creatine supplements
Post new comment