Posted on 04/02/2015 8:16:44 AM PDT by rktman
Polls show that gun owners cite self-protection as the primary reason they are armed. Their intentions are generally good and admirable. The gun-rights movement has done a great job making the argument for individuals to be armed to protect themselves and their families in their own homes. What if you are faced with a menacing home intruder and police are far away? In that situation, it makes good sense to be armed.
But there is an unfortunate lesson playing out for those who have armed themselves to feel safer—and for all of us, too. The gun-rights movement has worked hard to push an increasingly radical agenda that undermines both our personal safety and our civic fabric. To that extent, there is something almost tragic occurring here: The well-meaning citizens who arm themselves in droves, perhaps even in public, are in that very process threatening the peace and order they seek to preserve, and claim to uphold.
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
Could that pesky “micro aggression” rear it’s ugly little head? Or some “perceived” insult that you didn’t even know you made?
I guess ethics professors are allowed to bend the truth when it comes to gun control.
I got a response once after talking about Swiss gun laws and apparently things are changing there. Can’t remember the exact circumstance but I believe each canton makes it’s own rules and regs with some sort of national oversight. But it’s not as free for gun owners as I thought. I’m sure somebody will chime in with the more pertinent info if needed.
Rights harm the rule of law? LOLWUT?
He teaches in a College of Art. No credentials except that he is a citizen with an opinion like everybody else (which is flawed, IMO).
Don’t really care what he thinks; he’d be one of the first ones to bite it when the crunch of SHTF comes. IOW, absolutely no redeeming social value in a world not infested by liberals.
This is the paper-magazine equivalent of a Concern Troll.
My rule of thumb is “if you shoot someone, you’d damn well better kill him.” No conflicting stories, no “life-sustaining costs or value of life quality not realized” for one badly wounded.
Only the value of a life abruptly ended, one that is likely to not be valuable in any sense of the word anyway.
Another argument for avoiding a modern college "education" like the plague. Here is an excerpt from the author's faculty bio at Maryland Institute College of Art:
Firmin DeBrabander studied Philosophy at Boston College and the Catholic University of Louvain in Belgium, and received his Ph.D. in the field from Emory University in 2002. He has taught at MICA since 2005, and served as chair of the Humanistic Studies department from 2009 until 2012. His specialties include the History of Western Philosophy, Ethics, Political Theory, and Environmental Ethics. He also teaches courses on Media Ethics, Economic Theory, Eastern Philosophy, Philosophy of Science, and Medical Ethics. In 2007, he published a book entitled Spinoza and the Stoics (Continuum). He has published academic articles in journals such as History of Philosophy Quarterly, International Philosophy Quarterly, and in a volume issued by Cambridge University Press entitled Stoicism: Traditions and Transformations. More recently, he has written social and political editorials for the Baltimore Sun, Counterpunch and Common Dreams. He has organized several symposia in honor of Constitution Day at the college, including such speakers as John Waters, Helen Thomas, Angela Davis, Ralph Nader, Jesse Jackson, Amy Goodman, Andrew Sullivan, and Cornel West.
His citing of "Stand Your Ground" laws to make his bogus argument is probably very indicative of the quality (or lack thereof) of the "education" he provides at the Maryland Institute College of Art.
Thanks for noticing.
Somebody needs to smack Firmin DeBrabander across the face with unprosecuted felons like Lois Lerner, Hillary Clinton or Eric Holder.
To say nothing of Bill Clinton, Jon Corzine or Charlie Rangel.
STFU, Firmin.
“He has organized several symposia in honor of Constitution Day at the college, including such speakers as John Waters, Helen Thomas, Angela Davis, Ralph Nader, Jesse Jackson, Amy Goodman, Andrew Sullivan, and Cornel West.”
LOL! For Constitution Day these are the assclowns he arranged for? Well, that pretty much ends that discussion.
Well, last I checked, full auto’s were controlled under NFA ‘38(?) and are legally owned in many states. But, why SHOULD they have to be registered? One foot on the banana peel. LOL!
The libtard DeBrabander wrote: What if you become a target for would-be George Zimmermans?
I think the only thing George Zimmerman was targeting was the concrete slab with the back of his head...
Either the writer is badly misinformed or lying through his/her/its teeth. I suspect the lying is more likely.
How the right of the little people to defend themselves against the natural & logical consequences of Frankfurt School Agenda item #8 “An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime” harms the Arbitrary Rule of the Elites who despise the “Overflight” hoi-polloi.
What if you’re walking down the sidewalk and suddenly a piano falls on your head? What if you’re taking a bath and a slimy green tentacle comes up from the drain and strangles you? What if you visit Washington DC and you run into an honest politician?
How often do any of these things happen? About as often as a legal gun owner misusing a firearm against an innocent citizen.
Fewer residents than the NYC metropolitan area. It would be interesting to see the true figures of firearms ownership for NYC and environs, for comparison.
In New Jersey you are required to prove a need to carry in order to obtain a permit. And the proof is almost never enough, except for the connected.
What is it about "shall not be infringed" that they fail to comprehend?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
