As I've said for many years. There's a reason it's called the "Declaration of Independence," and not the Declaration of Partial Dependence. Dependence comes at the cost of freedom, and freedom comes at the cost of dependence. In order to be free of King George and Britain, the Founders had to separate themselves from all the benefits thereof, in addition to the burdens. They could not serve half a king. You either take the bad with the good or nothing at all. And this is a concept lost on modern America and essentially all of occidental society.
Only in the benighted mind of Socialist morons is such coercion by the state "freedom." But that's the trade many Americans, as a result of decades of brainwashing, are now willing to make, indeed demand we all make, and ever more vociferously at that. They want to trade power and freedom for the illusion of "safety," something that does not, never has, and never will truly exist in the real world. They trade the power and freedom of self-defense, for the promise of safety from a state whose average response time is 10 minutes.
The shootings at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School prove what every other "mass shooting" has before it. Those who consign responsibility for their safety into the hands of others do so at their own peril; no one will ever care about your safety as much as you. 17 people who relied upon the govenrment to save them are now acquainted with that fact; i.e., dead. The police (government) saved no one. (And it's now come out even stood by and did nothing.) The shooter, who could have killed many more if he wished, left the scene and went to both Subway and McDonald's before being apprehended. This is the circumstance leftists want to impose upon us all; one in which we're all equally helpless and in which the primary role of police is to secure and identify our bodies.
I could not care less about the good intentions of leftists or high school students. History is replete with examples of genocide perpetrated, or at the very least directly facilitated, by a highly vocal and stupid contingent of people with the best of intentions. High School students know nothing about anything and their opinions are worthless. They're children, typically not even old enough to vote, and have no business making assertions upon the validity of my rights. I don't give a damn how often they're paraded on the TV, or how many of them congregate to lie on the ground like retards in front of the White House. Tyranny out of ignorance is tyranny none the less, and should be resisted in identical fashion.
Some people may think me being hyperbolic above, when I said "the ultimate outcome of all leftist initiatives and endeavors, is the redistribution of power from the people to the state." But anyone can merely look to countries like Britain, in which civilian gun ownership has been banned, to see me vindicated.
Yes, that's a real image, taken from the NPCC's (National Police Chiefs' Council) website folks. I don't make these things up. So in Europe you have 3 options when faced with an imminent life threat. Run (and hope your attacker leads an even more sedentary life than you). Hide, which, if your attacker is after you specifically, would almost certainly never work. Pull out your phone and call someone so they can hear your final, frantic screams as your attacker takes your life, and someone knows to come identify and collect your body.
So, in case you haven't figured it out yet, "Run/Hide/Tell" = "Flee/Cower/Die." And one can't help but notice the inherently condescending nature of the image; i.e., this is what you would instruct a group of kindergartners to do in an emergency situation. It's quite revealing, in that it conveys the matriarchal disposition of the state (and the leftists that run it) toward its people, and the parental (authoritarian) posture it assumes if allowed.
You don't need a gun in Europe, because Europe's anti-gun laws and the state, will keep you safe. Except when they don't. As seen in France which, despite having strict gun laws that require permitting and impose ammo caps, still has gun violence.
American leftists want us to adopt laws like those of Europe which still resulted in 60 people murdered in France. So let it simply be asked, if mass shootings and acts of violence that kill more people than the incident in Las Vegas still occur despite stricter gun laws, then what purpose do such laws serve save to diminish the freedom of law abiding citizens? What other purpose could they serve when, as the image openly concedes, firearm attacks are "rare?"
Leftists upon reading/hearing that will naturally employ the sophistry that gun violence is "rare" in Europe because of strict gun laws that reduce wide scale access to firearms. But this is utterly refuted by real world evidence, e.g., that gun violence is far greater in countries in which gun ownership/accessibility is far less prevalent.
The graphic above illustrates the argument that greater abundance, and/or access to guns, induces gun violence utterly fallacious. The standard leftist response to this will be to argue that's only true in non-developed (i.e., "shithole") countries. In developed (i.e., non-"shithole") countries, like Britain, France, et al. (basically anywhere pretentious Europeans convoke), lower instances of gun crime are a direct result of strict gun laws. And now I'm going to tell you why that's abject malarkey.
The lower rates of gun violence in "developed" (i.e., non-"shithole") countries is not a product of their strict gun laws, but rather a pervasive culture of deference induced by Europe's emasculating matriarchal Socialist states. In other words it's a product of a culture in which the citizenry, as a result of decades of guns being anathematized in conjunction with assiduous inculcation that "violence never solves anything," is largely if not wholly unwilling to pick up arms in self-defense and looks entirely to the state for such. And that disposition has been proven one the biggest contributing factors to mass murder, much of which has been perpetrated with guns, in human history. A people terrified of guns who believe violence never solves anything, and are consequently unwilling to pick up arms in self-defense, is a totalitarian state's wet dream. The most egregious instances of mass murder in human history were perpetrated at the hands of armed governments. Not armed civilians.
As I've said forever, even could you achieve a complete ban of firearms (you can't), all that would do is result in a drastic rise in the number of knife murders, or something else as murderers simply found some alternative means to go about killing others. Like running them over in automobiles for example.
There were no interviews with the doleful relatives of Sayfullo Saypov's victims to my recollection. We weren't deluged with pictures of the dead by a media engaging in disingenuous memorials. There were no "lie ins" at the white house. No one blamed the truck, and demanded that "assault vehicles" be banned, because a society without automobiles is worth it if is "saves just one life." No, when you shoot someone the gun is to blame. But conversely, if you drive over them in a truck, the operator of the truck is inexplicably to blame. Why? Because, as I've long said, no one ever deposed a tyrannical state with a pickup truck.
So, let's hope you can outrun an automobile, folks. Because that's one of the 3 equally dismal options that will be available to you if the Communists of the left have their way. You don't "need" a gun. You should cower in fear waiting to die, looking only to the state for your protection, like a good slave.
No comments:
Post a Comment