This latest rant started on Larry Correia’s blog page under the Gun Control blog he put together in December 2012. I put my own two cents in a couple places, and then was asked a question about how I felt about being treated as a villain for using logical rational arguments. My reply was as follows:
I am quite willing to use any rhetorical means to challenge an opponent beyond logic if necessary. What I refuse to do is treat someone impolitely in the process. I will use reducto ad absurdium, bad analogies, weak metaphors, etc. if that is what most appeals to make a case to their level of understanding.
I do not call specific individuals names, not even President Barak Obama. However, I do arbitrarily categorize groups of people into unflattering classifications just as they intentionally do to us. I don’t feel constrained to in any manner fight fair, I do however choose to fight “politely” in the face of their agitation. If a term like Hoplophobe or fascist fits the argument they are presenting, then I have no problem calling it as I see it. I do not feel obliged to give their position a fair hearing unless they also show they can give the same consideration to points made by our side.
I will feel free to be passionate and emotional regarding my feelings on an issue. What I will not do is be angry and hate filled about any issue. Enthusiasm, not anger is the way to get past the unfeeling “rational” only argument limitations. In this particular case I think people need to feel in their core being that the limitations on the government’s power provided by the Bill of Rights are necessary for freedom, and that the Second Amendment is the critical right to protecting against infringements of the rest by an over reaching tyranny. As I have said before, every tyranny starts by saying they are trying to perform “the greater good”. What differentiates a tyranny from a reasonable government is that tyranny always tries to remove rights “for the greater good”. In my philosophy the actual greater good is never served by limiting people’s rights.
I may of course be called on not having enough “rational logic” behind my philosophy of governance or its basis. My response is simple, people are at their core naturally irrational beings. My irrationality is not any worse than anyone else’s. The difference is that my irrational belief is not requiring anyone else to surrender their rights to create utopia. Utopia is simply a myth sold by ambitious people who want control over others. Every historical attempt at creating utopia has shown this eventual result. People are not perfect beings, and never will be. Bad things will always happen in greater or lesser quantities, and pretending that forcing everyone to think nice thoughts will stop bad things is utterly foolish.
Some people are simply broken, evil, screwed up, crazy, or whatever else you want to call it in the political jargon of the moment. A portion of this is probably the fault of society at large, some of this is genetic, and thus beyond anyone’s control. Most of it is people making choices to become bad actors against their society.
The problem is that these outliers of society are actually the minority. Most people happily live their lives within the bounds of their society as long as it isn’t a repressive one. These outliers have a disproportionate amount of impact in comparison to their numbers. Unfortunately modern governments do poorly at separating these outliers from the masses. In order to restrict their influence the easiest solution they can conceive is to restrict everyone “to be fair”.
It may be “irrational” of me, but I don’t feel a need to be fair to the outliers of society. When they deliberately set themselves outside the bounds of society, then they need to be handled as such. If some lunatic thinks it is personally desirable for them to murder innocent children, or citizens because of their rage issues or psychosis, then I have no problem with thinking that individual, and society as a whole is better off if they are dead.
I would personally prefer such an aberrant outlier individual to self “check out” before trying such an action. If that isn’t possible I want a responsible citizen to stop their action before they can create the greatest level of harm they intend. If that citizen can do so with a kind word and a slice of pie, then great, I have no objection. If it takes a responsible citizen with a Concealed Carry Permit, or open carry firearm to do so, then I’d accept that outcome as well.
What I do not accept is a reduction of our freedoms, and a strengthening of tyranny to “feel safer”. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, anyone who would trade liberty for security deserves neither. There are no guarantees of absolute safety in this life. Any claim to such is an illusion sold by dishonest people to willing dupes. At least that is how I feel about it. No statistics or facts required to make my point here.
I hope this helps.
And further ranting on the topic:
There is nothing wrong with being “loyal” to your political beliefs on the surface of it. I don’t mind if you think that your political beliefs more closely map with the Democratic party and their stated positions on many issues. Vote what best serves your interests, because everyone else in the country who isn’t a fool does the same.
What many people here are concerned about is that they believe that the Second Amendment doesn’t just serve to protect their personal interests in hobbies like shooting sports or hunting. The intent of the Second Amendment is to prevent the politicians running our government from becoming tyrannical dictators who take away the inherent rights of the people by leaving within the hands of the people to power to defend themselves.
The Bill of Rights does not grant rights to citizens through the power of the government. Citizens naturally have those rights already. The Bill of Rights limits the power of the government to infringe upon the natural rights of citizens.
Also along with these rights comes a responsibility of citizens to not infringe upon the rights of others. The unfortunate cost of having these rights and responsibilities is that bad people will harm others. These bad people will try to murder, rape, rob, and steal because they are not responsible citizens. They are criminal thugs. No society on Earth throughout history has been free of these criminal thugs. Yet most often when people lose their rights to defend themselves and their society these criminal thugs become the ones who control a society.
That is the nature of Dictatorships and Tyranny. People who murder, rape, rob, and steal being in charge of the government. In this instance any legislator voting to steal the rights of the citizens to protect themselves, regardless of their party affiliation, is showing themselves to be a weak willed patsy at best, and a criminal thug at worst.
The Second Amendment limits the government from taking arms from the people who want to protect themselves against tyranny. It puts the politicians of every party on notice that they will be rightfully dealt with as criminal thugs if they make the attempt. A lot of “progressive” thinkers don’t like this thought. They fear that the people will object to their end goal of complete control over the people in a violent manner. They know they can not win if they try to wholesale take away guns from citizens.
So the “progressives” chip away using fear, using tragedy, using emotional reasoning to achieve their goal of a populace unable to defend itself from their objectives. They don’t want a classless society, they want a society of the “elite thinkers” and a proletariat which worships them.
Two further details about myself here for clarity. First, I have never been a member of any political party. The constitution makes no mention of parties being necessary to the governance of the people. I believe that the two major political parties in the US represent a political shell game designed to keep entrenched power in control of the government.
Second, I work for the federal government as an analyst. I watch the profusion of rules, regulations, polices, and orders the Executive Branch is supposed to enforce to a greater detail than the average citizen. I personally disagreed with the Patriot Act as a broad overreach of Federal Authority. I also like many of the federal workforce have an innate distrust of elected officials, most especially entrenched elected officials.