What did James say that pissed you off so much?

“What did James say that pissed you off so much?”

That was what Kevin asked me in email after reading my comment on James Kelly’s blog.

My response to Kevin, with some minor enhancements, follows.

There is his steadfast refusal to answer Just One Question. Oh, he answered–using numbers that were easily demonstrated as wrong. And when that was pointed out he just ignored it.

Then James said, “…the right to own a gun as a relatively meaningless, one-dimensional freedom, and thus interpret the banning of handguns as merely a minor disappointment to the minority of people concerned…”

I wonder how many people with a Glasgow Smile or similar wounds

regard not having the means to defend themselves “a minor disappointment”.

The battles at Lexington and Concord which resulted in our revolutionary war were fought because the arms of the colonists were about to be taken away from them. Surely they did not consider it a “minor disappointment” they were about to lose their guns. And what of the colonies that refused to sign the constitution unless the right to keep and bear arms was a specific enumerated right guaranteed by the constitution? Would it have been a “minor disappointment” had it not been there?

How many of those people involved in 2 million instances per year when someone in the U.S. uses a firearm in a defensive situation would regard it as a “minor disappointment” had they been forced by their government to face their attacker unarmed?

How many of those millions of men, women and children standing naked at the top of the ditches they had just been forced to dig–just prior to having a bullet rip through their neck regarded not having a gun in hand “a minor disappointment”?

The above irritated me. But what really pissed me off was I realized his “personal philosophy”, even completely disregarding the gun issue, is justification for genocide. And he is hypocritical about it. He believes people have a right to life but not the right to have tools to defend their lives.

His “cornerstone of personal freedom” is freedom from fear. If he is afraid of the blacks/Jews/homosexuals/whoever who live next door he apparently believes it is completely justified to bring the full force of government down upon them in a preemptive strike. Prevention of crimes not yet committed by infringement of a basic right is justified if someone is afraid. And it doesn’t have to be a fear based on immediate threat of severe injury or death. Just the mere existence of something, someone, sometime used in a criminal manner. It’s the very epitome of a victimless crime which must be punished. A crime where the “perpetrator” is not even aware of the existence of the “victim”. A crime where even the thought of injury to an innocent life need not be proved or hinted at. A crime where the true intent of the “perpetrator” is to protect innocent life and property is thought to be crazy because they want the tools available to protect innocent life should they ever need it. All because someone is afraid of something they have no experience with. And they call us paranoid.

The Germans didn’t begin implementation of the “Final Solution” until after the U.S. got into the war. They were afraid the Jews, who “controlled the U.S. as well as the banks, the U.S. media, etc.” would punish them for the mistreatment (but there were no mass killings yet) they had received up to that point. So they started killing them to eliminate the problem. They were just implementing James Kelly’s “cornerstone of personal freedom”–freedom from fear.

What he doesn’t understand is there cannot be a “right” which is given or implemented through the force of government. Rights are which those things which preexist government and can only be protected or infringed by government. He is an advocate for infringement and calls it freedom.

His “cornerstone of personal freedom” is the basis for the deaths of tens of millions of people and he doesn’t see the logical inconsistency or the impossibility of that being a functional basis for a civil society.

The QOTD is aimed at James Kelly.


14 thoughts on “What did James say that pissed you off so much?

  1. His minions and fellow travelers are legion. I have lost patience with explaining to them why and where they are wrong. I now only consider them future obstacles between myself and my due as a human, husband, father, son, uncle, etc. Obstacles are those things that are to be overcome through defeat or elimination. Hopefully, they will learn something on their own, I am through worrying about them.

  2. Which I don’t think plays into his “right to be free of fear”.

  3. I don’t talk about this much but your posted pictures break my silence again. Way before 1975 I was witness to the butcherism of liberals gone wild.

    This was in Cambodia. The UN was there and kept it secret. In fact the UN stole gold from a famous religious temple. The people were chopped to pieces, shot, decapitated. First they were disarmed by a seemingly benevolent, smooth talking “leader”. The rest is a well hidden secret even to this day.

    What you have read/been told is not even close to the actual brutal events that transpired under these communists, aka, “liberals”.

    I truly fear for our country under the current group of “leaders”.

  4. I’m thinking James is right for his kind — he is property of the crown. He must not be allowed the tools of free citizens for he is a subject. People such as he still don’t get the American revolution. We are free people, and we will not let you subjects (of fear or the crown) rule us.

    Of course he could be an advocate for, and believe in, true freedom and liberty instead of arguing to justify his cowering fear, but then he would not be a subject, no?

  5. Joe,

    Well done – again.

    Fellows like this one will be the ones to slobber all over the one(s) who save his sorry ass from some thug or tyrant, and even then, not get it.

  6. Terry, anytime you want to talk about it… I’m ready to listen. You name the terms and I’ll almost for certain agree to them.

    Chris, Good point.

    Joe, Isn’t it odd how that always happens?

    Thanks Rob.

  7. Somehow, it does not surprise me that James managed to confuse “getting emotional over an argument” and “having an emotional argument”. When he intentionally goes out of his way to say and imply things that would be absolutely disgusting to anyone concerned about such things as self-defense, self-preservation, freedoms, and continuation of life, feigning surprise at that inevitable disgust indicates either a marked logical disconnect from the conversation at hand, or an intentional and willful attempt at baiting the other side of the debate.

    Given that he used his misunderstanding of emotions as a basis to effectively grab his marbles and go home, I am quite inclined to lean towards the latter option.

    Unfortunately, Joe, I think you hit on the problem in this entire debate… James and his type are arguing from the point of view that living free from fear warrants any and all measures necessary. Initially, I have little doubt he would be outraged at your implication that his rationale would excuse genocide, but something also tells me he would not be against “rounding up” “undesirables” for the safety of the community, or somesuch. Strange how those two stances can be reconciled in a single mind… And, then, on the other side, there are those of us who realize where that path leads, and further acknowledge that individual rights to life far override someone’s subjective and poorly-explained right to “live free from fear”.

  8. Heck, he’s still insisting that his description of the de Vries shooting is “accurate”.

    You thought he was going to get logical? 🙂

    Like Kevin, I originally thought I’d explain it to him – after being certain that he’s dishonest, now I write for anybody else who reads him to make sure they understand that as well.
    He is the stereotype of the person who wants guns banned from law abiding citizens, and is sure to exclaim as the obvious consequences (usually unintended to those kind) occur.

  9. Unix-Jedi, yeah. I know. In a way I’m just as guilty as he is in continuing to hold on to my beliefs despite evidence to the contrary. I keep believing that he will recognize reality if I just point it out to him from the right angle.

  10. “Freedom from fear” and “freedom from want”, two of Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms, are insidious positive rights. They are provably incompatible with liberty.

    Give the government the enough power to assauge James’s fear and I will fear that government.

    Give the government the economic power to sate the wants of the laziest among us, and I guarantee that someone else’s wants will not be met. The economy will never reach the desired equilibrium and the thermodynamic losses of the effort will impoverish all.

  11. The “chatter” in the anti liberty community, it seems to me, is on the increase. That’s not counting the goings on in government, but in the population at large.

    And what was that saying I heard in the 1990s? “You can’t reason someone out of a position that he didn’t reason himself into.”

    And that other one; “Reason is a weapon used by angry white males” or something equally disturbing. Over on thegighroad.us I confronted a troll who was trying to get us to “let go” of our rigid logic, and set ourselves free into the world of the subjective. He/she was later blaming the U.S. for our clinging to materialism, and that we have been “conditioned” to think of guns as a means of protecting our “investments” (in quotes). That’s Jihadist talk but without the references to Allah, and it’s the sort of talk we’ve been getting out of Washington DC lately.

    Your liberty violates no one else’s rights. It demands nothing from anyone except non-interference. You can’t say that and have it sink in to certain heads. They interpret the words in an entirely different way. You’re speaking English, but they speak a different language.

    One thing you can count on 100%; when a lefty accuses you through inuendo of being responsible for the evils of the world as they often do, and when you make a counter argument, they flip immediately into victim mode. You’re the hater (trying to defend liberty) while they are the compassionate victim who trys to undermine liberty. Didn’t Ann Coulter write a book about that?

Comments are closed.