“He asked: “But why we do need eight-inch or ten-inch kitchen knives with points?”
“Butchers and fishmongers do, but how often, if at all, does a domestic chef use the point of an eight-inch or ten-inch knife? Rarely, if at all.”
Does any of this sound familiar? Why should anyone be in the position to dictate what other people “need”?
9 comments:
And this is the question for all gun-control fascists. Who are they to decide what another person needs to protect himself? Can the fascist even know the situation of the other person to any extent that the fascist can dare make such a suggestion? Can the fascist prove that his notion of "need" is based on anything other than his desire to dictate how others should live and worse, risk? Most, if not all of the gun-control fascists speak from a position of personal safety and profound ignorance of that with which others must contend in their lives.
As I’ve said several times at your blog, it’s less about safety than it is about control. If it’s possible to establish that the government or some other entity can determine what people “need”, then it just opens all sorts of doors to increased control.
The problem is, that most of the people making the “nobody needs” argument aren’t aware enough to realize where it’ll go. Just like the “people should marry anyone they love” argument is leading to all sorts of weirdness.
It's ironic when you consider the left's routine, "if you don't wanna, don't.." argument. "If you don't wanna marry someone of the same sex, you don't have to", "If you don't like abortion, you don't have to have one" and all similar BS retorts. Yet, they don't take their own advice with regard to weapons. "If you don't think you need an AR-15 with a laser-sight, pistol grips and 30 round magazine...." Nah...that doesn't work for them. The hypocrites.
But that goes one step further. You don’t have to have an abortion, but you have to pay for others to have them. You don’t have to marry someone of the same sex, but we’ll demand that you affirm and applaud those who do.
It’s just one more example of the hypocritical double standard that we see from the left.
This “take away guns” is also contrary to the US legal system. Our legal system isn’t designed to prevent crime, it’s designed to punish crime. But, why not restrict law abiding citizens based on what other people might do.
That's a good point to make, regarding what our legal system is designed to do. One could argue that one serves the other...punishment as deterrent and thus crime is prevented. But then, nothing is a crime until a law is enacted prohibiting it, and our laws focus on prohibition and punishment for the commission.
The point is that until action is taken, no law is broken. Even if the action is to actively plan a crime. Our legal system doesn’t punish people for what they think about doing, only for what they actually do.
In theory this does provide a deterrent, but only to the extent that people perceive the pain of the punishment will be greater than the pleasure of the crime.
We’ve all made the judgement that we’re willing to pay the ticket in order to drive fast or park wherever it’s convenient.
But now we have people trying to prevent crime by restricting those who obey the law in the hope that they can prevent those who don’t obey the law will be prevented from breaking the law.
It makes no sense.
It’s the same double standard the let’s Whoopi Goldberg, Samantha Bee, and the rest of the View hosts keep their jobs while Roseanne is cancelled. It’s inherent in the vileness spewed at Dana Loesch for the last few months, ignored by the Dan’s and Feo’s of the world.
It’s all about control of those who disagree, by any means necessary.
The irony is how often I hear from people accusing me, or conservatives in general, for being fascists simply for encouraging behavior we regard as moral, based on thousands of years of understanding, when our encouragement never manifests in any actual laws or legislative proposals to control at all. In the meantime, we must deal with nonsense like "homophobia" and "hate crimes" laws and the like, which actually do seek to control.
Clearly if you can control your opponents by ridicule and name calling, why wouldn’t you.
Post a Comment