Good question. Great finish

Dave Workman takes aim at outgoing Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels and the incoming candidates who are (or plan to continue) deifying state law with “no gun allowed” signs in city parks and fires straight through the heart of their bigotry with this question:

If a locked security door did not stop a determined gunman from committing a vicious, violent unconscionable attack on unarmed innocent women, just what in hell convinces you that a bunch of signs will do the trick?

But as Lyle pointed out in a comment yesterday:

…[I]t is missing the point to argue with them about the validity of their assertions and rationalizations. Those things are the smoke screens. The mantras. The prayers designed to reinforce the faith among their flock. Would you argue with a bank robber over the finer points of, and his rambling justifications for, bank robbery? Would you challenge a rapist to a debate over the concept of respect for other people and the principles behind property rights?

The point one is missing by arguing with the anti libertarian over his assertions is this; they are not rational. They often reject the very notion of reason. The anti libertarian, and the statist, like the jihadist, understands only brute force, group association and strength in numbers. We have to understand that we’re up against a cult– a cult of power, and that playing nicey-nice with them, entertaining their assertions, trying to convince them that we’re not really bad people, or engaging them in discussion at all, is playing into their hands. It’s lending a sense of credibility that they do not deserve. It’s trying to convince a robber, who just broke down your front door, that he’s doing something impolite. While you’re busy looking for the title to your house so you can prove him it really is your house, he’s collecting your silver and making off with it.

They will back down only when they are afraid.

One thought on “Good question. Great finish

  1. I’m afraid that I’ve had to develop this attitude and philosophy about “No Guns” signs in parks and other public places:

    I will still carry, in spite of (or – because of?) such silly signs and ‘regulations’ that are contrary to common sense and state laws. And when the SHTF and some baddie starts shooting up the place, I will withhold my fire unless me and mine are being directly shot at. Why? Because ‘the sign’ told me to. If you, too, want to be safe in a ‘no guns’ public place, carry. I’m not getting paid enough to go through the legal hassles of defending you in a ‘no guns’ zone, when a) you could be carrying to defend yourself, b) you could have worked with me to defeat this ‘no guns’ nonsense.

    Let those who believe in ‘no guns’ place all their faith in the ‘only ones’ who usually aren’t there when you want or need them (when seconds count, police are only minutes away).

Comments are closed.