Skip to main content

Leftists Hate Guns Because They Hate Liberty

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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Kaepernick Craze: Exposing the Nation's Fools One Conversation at a Time

The Kaeparnick craze and other viral movements haven't merely pressured people into becoming simpler caricatures of their prior selves, but they have manifestly exposed people for how foolish and uninformed they've been all along. 



In his final year in the NFL, Kaepernick ranked 17th in passer rating and 34th the year before that. 

He played through an entire season in only two of his six years in the league, and his best full-season performance ranks far outside of the NFL's top-250 single-season passing performances in the league's history. 

For reference, the oft-criticized Tony Romo posted a career passer rating of 97.1, as compared to Kaepernick's 88.9. 

Romo's passer rating dipped below 90 for only one season of the eleven seasons he played, whereas Kaepernick failed to eclipse the 90 mark on three of his six seasons, a full 50 percent of his time in the NFL. 

In fact, Kaepernick accomplished this feat only once if we are to discard those other two seasons in …

America's Civil War: Not "Civil" and Not About Slavery

Virtually the entirety of South and Central America, as well as European powers Britain, Spain and France, peacefully abolished slavery — without war — in the first sixty years of the nineteenth century. 

Why, then, did the United States enter into a bloody war that cost over half of the nation’s wealth, at least 800,000 lives and many hundreds of thousands more in casualties? 

The answer: the War Between the States was not about slavery. 

It was a war of invasion to further empower the central government and to reject state sovereignty, nullification of unconstitutional laws, and the states’ rights to secession. 

It was a war that would cripple the South and witness the federal debt skyrocket from $65 million in 1860 to $2.7 billion in 1865, whose annual interest alone would prove twice as expensive as the entire federal budget from 1860.

It was a war that would blur the lines and jurisdictions between sovereign states, that would indiscriminately sacrifice the founding principles etched …

Institutional Racism: The Sasquatch of Political Folklore

A great confusion has arisen out of the clamor of political debate, one which presupposes that any dismissal of the merits of “institutional racism” somehow equates to one’s rejection of personal struggle. 

Whereas the struggle of any individual remains always and everywhere unique and wholly personal, his common bond of complexion with others who have struggled serves inadequately as the basis for any argument which regards this commonality as the cause, or as the reason, for that veritable struggle. 

To condemn the unidentifiable and nebulous abstraction, then, by castigating an unnamed institution which persists beyond our specific capacity to recognize its power, serves only to absolve individuals of their personal responsibility, to shift blame and culpability to a specter which exists only by the creative designs of our imaginations, which exists as the scapegoat for all outcomes popularly maligned as undesirable. 

This unactionable practice, then, swiftly and categorically excuses…