The vast majority of Americans hardly know what exactly happened in Florida, let alone the reasons for it.
They have no idea whether any sort of policy would have prevented it, and instead of pursuing knowledge and investigating for themselves, they ubiquitously lean on the journalistic biases of those who have become intimately acquainted with hyperbole and sensational reporting absent cogent comprehension of the actual events.
All they know, especially those of the Left, is that a version of nirvana, which exists purely in their respective minds, enables them to consider restrictions on gun ownership as a viable means to rectification of a problem which they have, once again, only ambiguously identified.
They widely pay no mind to costs, even should their agendas yield a complete exhaustion of liberty, as they are plainly and steadfastly concentrated on their game of political whack-a-mole, legislating a perceived solution to every observable problem without any appreciation for the implied or protracted ramifications on liberty along the way.
In keeping with their paradoxical embrace of government when it suits them, they assume that the fallible institution remains omnisciently capable of executing the task of determining which citizens are worthy of rights and thence which are lesser human beings worthy of fewer.
Of course, the bulk of those who embrace such a mechanism of remediation neglect to appreciate the complex web of problems which plague a civilization of people in the first place: that weapons are the mere tools of those flesh-and-blood exceptions to the rest of a community who wish to remain relatively cordial with one another.
As such, Leftists never seem to identify personal responsibility as a worthwhile endeavor.
There is always a faceless entity or institution to blame for the disasters or shortfalls observed between persons or within institutions.
Whether it is a matter of too few jobs, too little pay, too little spent, too many guns, too few benefits, too few laws, too few regulations, too few opportunities, too few guarantees, or too few taxes, the Leftist remains conveniently focused on ambiguous institutions instead of flesh-and-blood human beings who have the capacity to learn and take action and assume responsibility for themselves.
Of course, it is far easier to point out the flaws of a system, as systems are scarcely susceptible to spoken criticism, while individual human beings happen to be infamously incapable of receiving it, all too often interpreting it as insults and cause for emotional backlash.
The latter bears unambiguous consequences at the ballot box.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms is one which is purposefully unequivocally defined, as it ranks as the most powerful resort for those desperate to protect themselves against any entity which has usurped authority beyond its enumerated domains to encroach upon others which are positively essential to liberty.
No other defined right will ever be more important than that to one's own defense, and history is replete with examples of occasions when this privilege has proven absolutely imperative for the survival of households, communities, native tribes and whole countries of people.
It is just so devastating that there's this enduring need to constantly revisit this debate every time an exceptional event strikes.
The unseen and oft-overlooked abstraction of freedom is seemingly always under threat when the intellectuals start chirping about ways to limit the freedoms of everyone in order to pursue their elusive portrait of nirvana.
Of course, the fanfare sells and attracts audiences hungry for outrage, so the talking heads all over will do their best to satisfy this ravenous and self-destructive appetite.
A series of events or lone nuts cannot define an entire epoch or population of people, and the system which enables those cases to place the rest in shackles is a system anathema to liberty.
Unfortunately, this won't prevent the disingenuous intellectual from seizing the spotlight to appeal to lesser minds incapable of thinking for themselves.
Facebook has proven remarkably invaluable in this capacity.
As Thomas Jefferson wrote in his memoirs, "... the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them, inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.”
In the age of media, this has never been more demonstrably true, and the common mind has seldom been more deluded than it is today, as Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman promulgated in his 2011 bestseller Thinking, Fast and Slow:
"The world in our heads is not a precise replica of reality; our expectations about the frequency of events are distorted by the prevalence and emotional intensity of the messages to which we are exposed."
Ultimately, freedom isn’t the byproduct of simply being American; it’s the product of consistently facing disaster and promoting individual responsibility instead of blaming the freedom to cause it.
They have no idea whether any sort of policy would have prevented it, and instead of pursuing knowledge and investigating for themselves, they ubiquitously lean on the journalistic biases of those who have become intimately acquainted with hyperbole and sensational reporting absent cogent comprehension of the actual events.
All they know, especially those of the Left, is that a version of nirvana, which exists purely in their respective minds, enables them to consider restrictions on gun ownership as a viable means to rectification of a problem which they have, once again, only ambiguously identified.
They widely pay no mind to costs, even should their agendas yield a complete exhaustion of liberty, as they are plainly and steadfastly concentrated on their game of political whack-a-mole, legislating a perceived solution to every observable problem without any appreciation for the implied or protracted ramifications on liberty along the way.
In keeping with their paradoxical embrace of government when it suits them, they assume that the fallible institution remains omnisciently capable of executing the task of determining which citizens are worthy of rights and thence which are lesser human beings worthy of fewer.
Of course, the bulk of those who embrace such a mechanism of remediation neglect to appreciate the complex web of problems which plague a civilization of people in the first place: that weapons are the mere tools of those flesh-and-blood exceptions to the rest of a community who wish to remain relatively cordial with one another.
As such, Leftists never seem to identify personal responsibility as a worthwhile endeavor.
There is always a faceless entity or institution to blame for the disasters or shortfalls observed between persons or within institutions.
Whether it is a matter of too few jobs, too little pay, too little spent, too many guns, too few benefits, too few laws, too few regulations, too few opportunities, too few guarantees, or too few taxes, the Leftist remains conveniently focused on ambiguous institutions instead of flesh-and-blood human beings who have the capacity to learn and take action and assume responsibility for themselves.
Of course, it is far easier to point out the flaws of a system, as systems are scarcely susceptible to spoken criticism, while individual human beings happen to be infamously incapable of receiving it, all too often interpreting it as insults and cause for emotional backlash.
The latter bears unambiguous consequences at the ballot box.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms is one which is purposefully unequivocally defined, as it ranks as the most powerful resort for those desperate to protect themselves against any entity which has usurped authority beyond its enumerated domains to encroach upon others which are positively essential to liberty.
No other defined right will ever be more important than that to one's own defense, and history is replete with examples of occasions when this privilege has proven absolutely imperative for the survival of households, communities, native tribes and whole countries of people.
It is just so devastating that there's this enduring need to constantly revisit this debate every time an exceptional event strikes.
The unseen and oft-overlooked abstraction of freedom is seemingly always under threat when the intellectuals start chirping about ways to limit the freedoms of everyone in order to pursue their elusive portrait of nirvana.
Of course, the fanfare sells and attracts audiences hungry for outrage, so the talking heads all over will do their best to satisfy this ravenous and self-destructive appetite.
A series of events or lone nuts cannot define an entire epoch or population of people, and the system which enables those cases to place the rest in shackles is a system anathema to liberty.
Unfortunately, this won't prevent the disingenuous intellectual from seizing the spotlight to appeal to lesser minds incapable of thinking for themselves.
Facebook has proven remarkably invaluable in this capacity.
As Thomas Jefferson wrote in his memoirs, "... the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them, inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.”
In the age of media, this has never been more demonstrably true, and the common mind has seldom been more deluded than it is today, as Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman promulgated in his 2011 bestseller Thinking, Fast and Slow:
"The world in our heads is not a precise replica of reality; our expectations about the frequency of events are distorted by the prevalence and emotional intensity of the messages to which we are exposed."
Ultimately, freedom isn’t the byproduct of simply being American; it’s the product of consistently facing disaster and promoting individual responsibility instead of blaming the freedom to cause it.
Comments
Post a Comment