A simple logical idea

Can’t we just all agree? Can’t we all just get along? It’s such a simple logical idea:

Montreal — A young man shot in the head during a college shooting rampage called on Prime Minister Stephen Harper on Wednesday to limit handguns and impose an outright ban on assault rifles.

Hayder Kadhim, who was shot three times by killer Kimveer Gill on Sept. 13, has written Mr. Harper an open letter in which he describes his ordeal after Gill opened fire on students at Dawson College, killing Anastasia De Sousa and wounding 20 other people.

“This has brought me, as a Canadian citizen, as a friend of Anastasia and as a victim, to write a letter to our prime minister to tell our government that we need to strengthen the laws regarding gun control,” Mr. Kadhim told a news conference.

“Guns and society definitely don’t mix. This is a simple logical idea that I think most Canadians would agree with.”

Simple ideas for simple minds. So if “guns and society definitely don’t mix” then you should be calling for the police and military of Canada to give up their guns too. After all, aren’t they part of society? Or do you think that guns do have some place in society? Don’t the police and the military have guns so they can protect innocent life? And don’t private citizens have a right to protect their own lives? It is this argument that brings “society” to the conclusion that the individual doesn’t have the right to defend themselves. To the conclusion that the good of “society” is more important that the good of the individual.

I’ve been listening to the audio book version of Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. I could rant on this topic for quite sometime at the moment. The book gets my blood pressure up. It’s fiction but it’s too close to reality to be comfortable. I don’t care for her version of ideal relationships between men and women but she really nails “the good of society” and “higher purpose”.


3 thoughts on “A simple logical idea

  1. Notice that Rand doesn’t spread guns liberally through the book, but is pointed about the government’s real point of power – the gun, just like that famous quote from Mao.

    Galt cannot be threatened to submit, to unleash his mind “for the benefit of all”. I find it humorous that there really was nothing he could do to “fix” the system, because as Reagan said later it IS the problem. He was acting in a perfectly reasoned manner. If they were not willing to REALLY give him total control he could not fix it. You tell me to lift that car all you want, but without means beyond my mere muscles it isn’t going to happen. Brawn without mind is nothing.

    In the end guns are used only to free John from people holding him with guns. Those people were (ostensibly) government agents. So, the use by Galt’s friends is a true second ammendment use.

    Sooo… What is your problem with Rand’s approach to relationships? I think it a great deal more realistic than what passes for reasoning in today’s society. I think that her relationship reasoning might even pass muster with Dr. Phil…. Okay perhaps that is a bad example. My point is that Rand asserts that we attach ourselves to others as we value ourselves. The mate we choose is a reflection of how we see ourselves. I think that this is quite sound.

    What’s not to like about Dagny (other than her being skinny)? She shoots, she pilots aircraft and oh, she can build and run a railroad.

    I re-read Atlas Shrugged about every two years. It is my second favorite book. Want to bend your brain? My favorite book is the Bible. Rand would have a fit I am sure. I have harmonized the two to my satisfaction.

  2. In both “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead” the female leads enjoy being raped. The male leads “take” and the females “submit”.

    This is not the type of relationship I see as “realistic” and certainly not as utopian.

Comments are closed.