Quote of the day—Brian Keith

The true diversity test

Liberals love to talk about diversity.

Churches in Seattle are festooned with “love your Muslim neighbor” signs.

But the real test of diversity isn’t whether you can break bread with someone who worships differently than you.

The real test is if you can be civil, be courteous, be inviting… to gun owners.

Consider this: all gun owners, in the minds of liberals, are responsible for all mass shootings.

Remember, a bombing or knife attack is the responsibility of the person, but attacks with guns are the responsibility of the inanimate object and all people who have those inanimate objects are at risk of engaging in the same criminal behavior.

This is the liberal mentality of, “I wouldn’t trust myself with a gun because I might go shoot someone the first time I got angry!”

To most readers here who concealed carry on a regular basis that sounds absurd, but I promise you it is a devout belief among Seattle liberals.

They believe that having a gun makes you into a crazy person who murders people.
Which book your worship out of, or if you pray with your hands in front of you or on the ground- that is small potatoes compared to having a device that instantly makes you a murderous psychopath.

And so the true diversity test is not whether you would shake a Muslim’s hand, or eat dinner with someone of a different skin color, or even a different sexuality. These kinds of diversity are officially encouraged, condoned, and safe.

The true diversity test is- would you have coffee with a gun owner?

With someone who lives on the responsibility plane of “I keep myself, my family, and my community safe from violence” and relies on police as the second line of defense?

My experience among liberals tells me, mostly not.

And I think it’s not just the gun- it’s the self-reliance that’s to blame.

Apart from my neighbors, I don’t accept that violence just happens randomly and I can do nothing to stop it.

I don’t wait meekly while evil people do evil things.

And in Seattle, that separates me from my community.

That stigmatizes me.

If I ever let it be known.

Check out the Pink Pistols experience in the Pride Parade. Flagrantly gay? Two thumbs up. Want to talk about defending yourself? We’ll follow you around and shout you down so everyone knows you aren’t welcome here.

I imagine inviting my more liberal friends to coffee and letting them know I’ll be armed. Or revealing during coffee that I’m carrying.

I don’t have the courage.

I don’t want the scene.

I can’t bear to lose yet more friends because I believe life is worth defending and I actually prepare to live that belief.

But you, dear reader of Joe’s blog- perhaps your liberal friends are different?

Perhaps you could invite them to a social situation where they explicitly know you’ll be armed?

I’ll love to hear the results of your True Diversity Test in the comments below.

Brian Keith
June 25, 2018
Via email. Slightly edited with permission.
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

12 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Brian Keith

  1. ANY person who would vote for laws that leave me defenseless, and would support police taking my rights away at gun point is no friend of mine. I do not crave the approval of others so much that I would volunteer for servitude.

    I have lost friends, cut contact with relatives, and ended relationships over this. It is part of who I am, and you can accept that or move on.

    • I had the same reaction. If a person responds that way to my being armed, he can’t qualify for the label of “friend”.

  2. “I don’t have the courage.

    I don’t want the scene.”

    Well, there’s your problem right there.

    I disregard the “liberal’s” diversity just as I disregard their screed against imaginary “racists”. (Racists being everyone who doesn’t kowtow to the “liberal’s” demands.) Just another feel-good buzzword for the delusional and ignorant to self-flagellate to. They don’t want compromise. They don’t want “hands across the aisle”. See Law Dog’s cake analogy. It applies to any proggie talking point including “diversity”.

    As far as the “True Diversity Test” goes? Sorry, can’t help you. I don’t associate with those who would deny me my natural rights.

  3. Race is not supposed to matter. Vocal mouthpieces of The Left behave as if race is the only thing that matters, or that nothing else matters more. By definition, that is racist behavior, and by definition, behaving in that manner makes them racists. Further, and by definition, them calling other people racists as they do so is hypocrisy, and by definition, them behaving in that manner makes them hypocrites. They perpetuate the problem they claim to be complaining about. They behave in that manner because doing so benefits them if they get away with it, and they get away with it if you let them.

  4. Pingback: The Tolerance of Progressives | 357 Magnum

  5. “I can’t bear to lose yet more friends…”

    If they ostracize you for the mere fact of owning a gun they aren’t your friends. They may be fun to hang out with, but that’s not necessarily a friend. You find out who your friends are when you’re completely open about your beliefs.

    My in-laws are leftists. Mother in-law was a life-long Democrat Party/Union activist even, who had to marry a conservative so she could have a good house and some security, but still she never made the connection. If these in-laws should have the “honor” or chatting with a legislator, the conversation will quickly turn to “why can’t we raise more taxes…?” I’ve seen it happen. They all know that I carry a gun, and they all know that I own and operate a gun accessory manufacturing business. They still invite me over. Maybe it’s because it would be too embarrassing for them to leave me out of the picture when my wife visits them, but I don’t know. We get along fine. Once my gay brother in-law said he believed Bush 43 to be a “Fascist”. I agreed, saying, “That’s right; he’s far too left-wing”. Brother in-law just huffed and changed the subject, but no doubt it left him something to think about. I call it “planting mustard seeds”. If the seeds find fertile ground in his mind, they’ll grow.

    I did know a man who worked for decades for the two Universities here (Idaho and WSU) as a technician. We’d had a decades-long, rather “chummy” professional relationship, and were “friends” in that sense. A couple years ago I found out that he’s a Jehovah’s Witness, because he was the “recruiter” who happened to knock on my door not know who lived there. Of course I had some guns lying around, and that came up in conversation, and I could see the hate in his eyes. I mean real hate, such that he had to leave rather than further expose it. I never heard from him again, nor do I expect I will. Of course it probably didn’t help that I was picking apart some of the inconsistencies and contradictions in the WatchTower and Awake! magazines that they always bring along.

    What is one to do? I will treat others with acceptance and even love, but I’m not going to allow error to go un-addressed when the conversation turns to matters of basic principle. If there’s going to be any hating, then it will have to come from the other person, because it will not come from me. ONLY IN THAT KIND of relationship will the truth ever be allowed to show, and we owe it to the truth to let it be heard. (“If not now, then when? If not me, then who?”) HE hated, and HE left the conversation. I was, and am, still willing and eager to talk, without enmity.

    And so, again, I bring up that which the Bible tells us about this very question (as it speaks clearly and specifically on all important questions);
    Speak the truth, and let the truth do the cutting.
    Come out and be separate.
    “Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them.”
    Hate the lie, love the person.

    We cannot compromise the basics, nor can we compromise ourselves to “get along” when we already know well that “getting along” means mixing truth with deadly error, thus diminishing the truth while up-lifting the error to a status it cannot be allowed to reach without dire consequences. Martin Luther understood all of this to near perfection, but today even the “Lutherans” forget it; Let the truth be heard, come what may– Let the truth do the cutting. If your “friends” abandon you, that is well and good. It’s been prophesized. It is expected, even required. You don’t need to have them like you, and they, although they do in fact need you (or someone like you) to expose them to the truth, they often won’t have the honesty or the humility to acknowledge it. You do your part. The rest is on them.

    This is in fact a war and you are in fact a soldier. Act like one. No one said it would be easy, or that there would be no price to pay for victory. There will be casualties, but this isn’t the normal kind of war. It’s more serious. Your primary weapons are not guns, bombs, blades and materiel, but the messages of truth, and your enemy is not the person, or the people, but the evil, the deception, which holds them in its grasp. “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places” and so on, just as it says, and what if it’s all true? What then?

    If it’s all true, well, the world will look exactly as it does right now, except that you’d understand why and then see what’s coming.

  6. The liberal “Diversity” is a sort of M&M’s diversity. If you buy a bag of M&M’s you get a rainbow of colors on the outside, but the same flavor inside. This is the same with Leftists. A rainbow of colors, but the same pernicious, vile and evil anti-liberty beliefs inside.

    I also think that the idea that the whole world is disarmed is a comfort to Leftists in a different way. They can be assured that if they lose their schmidt at someone they don’t have to worry about that person concluding they represent a mortal danger to them because of the walking stick they hold, or umbrella. This is why the “proportional response”, or what I call “The Bar Fight Rule” applies in severely Leftist places such as the United Kingdom (where Great Britain used to be), where an intruder can break in to someone’s home at 3:00 am, and instead of taking a cricket bat or a kitchen knife to the intruder, the homeowner has to assess what weapons the intruder has and use only those to preserve his life and the lives of his family. Never mind that people who simulate such examples of combat factor in the element of surprise. Ask any role playing gamer.

  7. Brian – your relationships sound extremely unfulfilling. What do you even talk about when you have them over for dinner? How can you have a fulfilling conversation with leftists who are so rabidly liberal that you’re afraid they will wholly reject the honest you?

    I personally would not be satisfied with such friendships, and those people would never likely become anything more than acquaintances. I furthermore consider it disrespectful to self and others to tell such a big lie (by omission of otherwise) in order to fit into a group.

    Usually I encounter this willingness to suppress personal beliefs in exchange for group acceptance in people from Southern culture, not in the Northern culture (transcendent of political camp). I’m curious, are you willing to tell us if you’re from the South?

  8. The argument that all gun owners are responsible for all mass shootings and murders, if naturally extended, means that all consumers of alcohol, are responsible for all drunk driving injuries and deaths, and every beating or death due to removal of inhibitions by alcohol. If these people did not drink alcohol socially, there would not be the reduction in cost due to volume production, and the people who commit crimes while under the influence would be paying more for their drug of choice and could not therefore be under the influence as often or as much.

    • There’s a great cartoon I have saved away. It shows a guy lying on the ground, and two others standing next to him. Four frames.
      First three have captions like “you strangled him — what’s wrong with you?” The fourth one says “you shot him, we need to ban guns”.

Comments are closed.