Then no one needs military style vehicles

Via email from JavaMan:

I was driving the other day and thinking.  I do that a lot lately.  And I came upon a convoy of “weekend warriors” – National Guardsmen, I believe (I don’t think it was Regulars, although I could be wrong) and later on the trip back home as I was thinking about the anti-gunners argument that “No-one should have an military style weapon… what with it’s ‘high capacity clip’ and pistol grip, etc…”

Maybe you’ll see where I”m going with this.

Following that reasoning no one should have a vehicle or any other equipment that can perform as well or better than anything the military has.  Like cars that go 70, 80 or more MPH!  We should all be limited to 50 mph as a military convoy is on the highway!  And why would anyone need a 4X4 … only the military should have those.  And then there are the various Hummers out there.

I know, just a wild and crazy thought but I though may be you could consider it when someone posits “no one should have something that the military might have” argument.

I think the argument is sound. But logical arguments are not the currency of our opponents. Hence it will have no more value to them than if we offered a $100 bill to a caveman in hopes he wouldn’t hurt us. He would probably take it as an insult, club us over the head, and take our pocket knives while leaving our corpses to be eaten by the vultures and maggots.

Given the chance, anti-gunners would do the modern day equivalent.

We need responses the caveman will understand.


4 thoughts on “Then no one needs military style vehicles

  1. It has been asserted already, that logic (clear thinking, in pursuit of truth) is a weapon of oppression used by the patriarchy. It goes the most basic aspects of this world, which is a battleground in the war between good and evil. Each side, and rightly so, sees the other side as an oppressor.

    Each side says to the other, and correctly so, “If you get your way, then my actions and my choices are limited. I don’t want to be limited, so fuck you”**. The correctness of that statement, from both sides, must be acknowledged, absolutely. But only one side is right, and good, while the other side is wrong, and evil. And so we quickly arrive at metaphysics.

    What is almost always missing from the conversation is the Perfect Law of Liberty (Any Rand, for example, missed it, nay, rejected it), and until that part is understood this is going nowhere but into fruitless, violent confrontation (like the French Revolution). It’ll go to violent confrontation anyway though, the difference being that at least one side in the conflict could understand the fundamentals of the conflict, and thus there’d be a chance of it being a fruitful one (more like the American Revolution, only better).

    **That goes straight to Obama’s claim that the US constitution is a “Charter of Negative Rights”, for but one example. “Thou shalt not steal” is an oppressive statement too (from the perspective of thieves and politicians). Likewise, “Though shalt not commit adultery”, is a choice-limiting command which would be seen by some as oppressive while it is seen as protective and liberating by others. So the question becomes, Who shall oppress whom, and on what pretense or justification? And right there, the first five Commandments give weight, purpose, and allegiance of identity (with universal authority) to the last five.

    So to boil it all down to the most basic principle; this is the War of Two Alliances. Choose wisely.

    • So, what President Obama terms “negative rights” can be summarized as “Leave me the hell ALONE!” while what he calls “positive rights” can be summarized as “Gimme!” With so many positive rights to be obtained from so many people now, it’s amazing that the Thirteenth Amendment is still considered in effect.

  2. The Internet itself started life as a military communications net. Nobody needs mil-spec commas. Ban it, too.

  3. “The individual right of self defense is a fundamental human right. You are denying us our human rights when you take guns from the law abiding.”

    Repeat as needed, don’t stop saying it, demand they either accept that right or that they acknowledge they don’t want it to exist. And when they say they don’t want an individual right of self defense to exist, kick ’em inna nuts, and ask them to think about it.

Comments are closed.