This Month's Top Commentators

  • Lewis LewisTop Commentator Award
  • Zon ZonTop Commentator Award
  • Terrence TerrenceTop Commentator Award
  • Skyler the Weird Skyler the WeirdTop Commentator Award
  • Bruce Bruce

The Best Voter Lists Available

PunditHouse Store

The Progressive Goal Of Unflavored Lives

|

Another nutcase left unattended and the leftists cry out for protection from guns, drunk drivers, high incomes, global warming and old age, among other things. Is government protection from baldness on the list?

How did we get here? We have a country which was established with the use of weapons. These weapons were owned by individuals and used to fight against their taxpayer-armed government. (Think Syria)

Due to the understanding of the relationship of government and men the founders wrote a constitution which enumerated certain things the government could do, ONLY those, then went further and listed rights of the people. Possession of firearms is one of those.

Today, hundreds of millions of weapons are owned by the people. These are usually not the weapons of the military or the police. The military and police possess high powered assault weapons to be used against enemies of the state; or in the case of the police, the citizenry. Yet the people are supposed to give up another of their possessions, their rights to a particular weapon to protect themselves from another nutcase.

Let me digress here. Not so long ago many of the nutcases were put away in ‘institutions’. Society was protected from them. Now, the do-gooders, the advocates, have forced government to turn the nutcases loose in society by closing the institutions and guess what, the nutcases do what nutcases to: harm others and themselves. So whose fault is it? Obviously not the people who worked to get the nutcases turned loose on society, but let us not address the real issues in this surge of limiting the right of taxpayers to own guns. Back to the main track.

What about the nutcases who work for the police? Who is going to protect us from them? Are we going to take their weapons away also? They shoot the wrong people on regular occasion. Who cries out to take their guns away?

Let us go further. This unhappy episode brings out the truth of many on the left. It is state control. Some advocate for a complete disarming of the citizenry. In their concern for the safety of people they argue against freedom itself. This then is the crux of the matter, freedom versus safety.

What is freedom except risk? Every day a free man gets up he is at risk of some happening beyond his control. It is the freedom to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, or a car without a seatbelt, or eat a hamburger cooked rare, or to run a business which might go bankrupt.

Take the risk away and you have no freedom. Government is there at every turn.

We are safe. To do what? Nothing. Oh, perhaps watch reality TV.

Ladies and gentlemen, we don’t get out of this alive. Risk is not a part of life, it is life. Those who would take your guns away would also stop you from living except the most unflavored life, not even vanilla. Unflavored. They want you stacked in apartments downtown, surrounded by buildings with a well-structured park to visit and pleasant food for your excitement, so long as the growing and transportation of the food doesn’t harm any animals or bugs.

Those who work to eliminate the constitution actually want your life. They want you to give up your right to choose; you must follow their rules, and have a life of no risk. My question is: will that make me live forever or will I still die?

Our founding fathers understood the penchant of some to use the power of government to control the people. They wrote a Constitution of enumerated powers for that reason. The right to keep and bear arms is not limited to the government, it is a right of the people by not being enumerated and then again by Amendment.

Don’t fool yourself, those who will take these rights will not stop until your entire life is unflavored.

I offer you, in closing, Jack London’s credo:

I would rather be ashes than dust!

I would rather that my spark should burn out in a brilliant blaze than it should be stifled by dry-rot.

I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

The function of man is to live, not to exist.

I shall not waste my days trying to prolong them.

I shall use my time.

Donate Now!We need your help! If you like PunditHouse, please consider donating to us. Even $5 a month can make a difference!

Short URL: http://pundithouse.com/?p=12698

Comments are closed