Nothing Exemplifies the Political Divide More Than The Issue Of Firearms

Ammoland ^ | August 30, 2019 | Roger Katz

[DoodleBob]

New York – -(AmmoLand.com)- The Radical New Progressive Left abhors guns as much from an aesthetic standpoint as from a political, social, and ethical one.

Thus, they never fail to use a particularly tragic albeit rare instance of misuse of a firearm by the criminal and the occasional lunatic to denounce firearms ownership and possession generally, vociferously, and this is reflected in the question they ask and the manner in which they ask it: How can society protect itself from the “scourge” of guns?

You will note that their professed concern is that of society, of the Collective, the Hive, not that of the individual, even if they perforce assert that their concern is to protect lives. Be advised, the question they pose is really rhetorical as their answer to the scourge of guns is implied in the question as framed, namely: remove as many guns, and as many kinds of guns, and from as many people, as possible, and in the shortest amount of time. But, will doing so, really serve to protect people? Radical New Progressive Leftists don’t respond rationally to this query, because they accept their premise as a given, even if statistically untrue; and the assumption is untrue that more innocent lives will be spared once guns are removed from the citizenry.

... Who will protect the lives of the people when they they are denied the best means available for defending their life and the lives of family members?

On the issue of gun violence, the Conservative, asks a different question entirely. It is this: “How can the citizenry best protect itself from violent acts, generally?”

[PGalt]

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” ― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn , The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956

[AlaskaErik]

A Nation of Cowards was written over a quarter century ago. It needs a serious update.

[Lowell1775]

Ping

[Who is John Galt?]

If someone tries to break into the safe room, (here is the ridiculous part) you need to have a broom handle, break apart a pair of scissors, and tape the blade and make a spear. SAY WHAT! No mention of home firearms in the book at all.

Must have been written by a liberal, or an idiot. I mean, even if you didn't have a gun in the supposed "safe room", how about something with a little more authority than a jury-rigged marshmallow skewer? How about a chain saw? If nothing else, a chain saw would let you exit the stupid "safe room" if/when any career criminals started shooting their way through the locked door with their illegal firearms.

Oh, that's right - no liberal would want anyone to own a chain saw, either, because (a) they symbolize mankind's 'rape' of the Amazon rain forest; (b) they're way too dangerous; and (c) Trump!!!

[DoodleBob]

I appreciate your thoughtful approach. Yes, in many cases a political sacrificial lamb is offered to keep the wolves at bay. The history of any people are ripe with this approach - global trade, mining, drilling, etc. are but a few areas where people have yielded a little bit of safety for freedom.

However, for many people, the right to keep and bear arms is the palladium of the liberties of a republic. As such, while we MAY learn to live with, say, the EPA, confiscatory rates of taxation, public schools, and others in a long string of usurpations, we feel that the slippery slope on firearms is too risky.

[DoodleBob]

Yes, while some elements of it harken back to people and times we’ve forgotten, the words and sentiment are timeless. And still spot on in 2019.

[RedStateRocker]

Gender vs. sex, also, I think.

those of us who identify as ‘Conservative’ tend to believe that “gender” and “sex” are pretty much the same thing. One has male genitalia and therefore is male, or female genitalia and therefore is female, with the exception of genuine hermaphrodites, which are very rare. The left sees ‘gender’ as a social and psychological construct, whith dozens of shifting variables.