An acquaintance who is familiar with my strong support for unfettered gun rights approached me recently and stated, "So, you believe that gun violence is justified."
"Only when such violence serves a redeeming moral purpose," I replied rather curtly.
"Killing people is never justified,' she said, 'Nor does it ever serve a redeeming moral purpose."
"Try telling that to the Marxists/Socialists/Communists and other totalitarians who murdered in cold blood nearly 100 million people around the world in the past 100 years," I responded, "And try telling that to hundreds of citizens each year who use guns to save the lives of their families, as well as themselves, from lawless thugs."
Progressives never got the word that 'lawless thugs' or 'criminals' do not respond very well to common, sensible laws. This is why they are called 'lawless.' But then, most people with a 6th grade education know this--except for progressives.
The reason citizens must have the freedom to keep and bear arms is that a large and dangerous sector of society does not obey any law that says you must not commit murder, or that you must respect another person's property, or that you must conduct yourself in a manner in which others are not harmed. Progressives sitting in their sanitized, insulated ivory towers claim to be ignorant of such people. But informed, free citizens know the danger and must have the means to defend themselves not only against threats to their lives and property but against oppressive governments as well. This is at the heart of the American experience dating all the way back to the Declaration of Independence. And yes, deadly force was used to defend freedom when it was attacked by totalitarians.
Yet progressives insist, as they always have, upon forced compliance among the populace to whatever edicts they hand down from their lofty self-appointed thrones as the guardians of 'the good of society.' In such utopian tin-pan fiefdoms, progressives mandate that there be no guns except for law enforcement and military, and even that is up for debate. Citizens must eat and drive and purchase what they are told, like good little slaves.
Exaggerations, you say? Not according to the New York Times.
The Times inadvertently outed itself as the progressive propaganda tool that it is by admitting that it wishes to control our lives, from top to bottom.
Times columnist Neil Genzlinger, writing on the front page of the Sunday Metropolitan Section stated,
Perhaps you've noticed the trend among certain people these days to decide that certain other people are not living acceptable lives and must be reformed. I'm all for the concept, so long as I'm the one deciding what's acceptable and doing the reforming.
And he is dead-serious.
But the Times was not through with its pompous pimping of progressive pot-ash. In yet another section of the paper, the Sunday Review section, Mark Bittman wrote a stinging piece that bashes the lifestyle, eating, and spending habits of Americans, along with the food industry itself. This necessitates, according to Bittman, a government nanny-state to step in and make these decisions for the citizens, given that obviously they are much too dumb to do so themselves. To progressives like Bittman, micro-control of individual lives is a legitimate role for government.
Said Bittman,
The food industry appears incapable of marketing healthier foods. And whether its leaders are confused or just stalling doesn't matter, because the fixes are not really their problem. Their mission is not public health but profit, so they'll continue to sell the health-damaging food that's most profitable, until the market or another force skews things otherwise. That "other force" should be the federal government, fulfilling its role as an agent of the public good and establishing a bold national fix.
That 'fix', it is to be presumed, is something akin to the federal government's ban on incandescent light bulbs during the years Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress in 2007. After all, it was only for the pubilc's good. Those bulbs are inefficient and dangerous to the environment, or so said 'the experts.' So the healthy, prudent, and sufficiently 'green' alternatives--fluorescent mercury-filled bulbs--are the perfect answer.
But wait.
Have you ever read the hazards associated with such alternative bulbs? Time to get thoroughly educated. If you break one, there is a prescribed procedure for cleanup in order to prevent damage to the health of humans and pets. The costs of the cleanup are astronomical. And if you happen to break one outside, the entire section of the sidewalk where the thing broke must be blocked off for safety reasons until there is a proper cleanup.
Even the Environmental Protection Agency admits in its own cleanup guidelines that the fluorescent bulbs can be very dangerous if broken.
This is good for the environment and the health of Americans, how, eactly? And these people wish to dictate what we eat and drive? And they want to control our healthcare to boot.
Sorry, but a chamber full of ring-tailed baboons swinging from the chandeliers of Congress could have made a better decision. And the fact that the New York Times endorses such rubbish would not only make Chairman Mao proud but further confirms the fact that such a publication is irrevocably worthless as a news reporting agency.
Be sure to catch my blog at The Liberty Sphere.
Visit my ministry site at Martin Christian Ministries.
Subscribe by clicking the links at the top of the page, or below, and you will receive free notifications of new articles plus a free newsletter.
Comments