Posts Tagged ‘Liberal bias’

More Liberal Sanctimony about Gun Control

December 4, 2012 Leave a comment

A high profile sports star murders his girlfriend and then commits suicide: a sad and unfortunate event.  I do not dispute that.  Yet I fail to understand how every time a murder involving a gun occurs, blowhards on the Left and in the media (as if there is a difference) continuously feel the need  to manipulate the situation and push their authoritarian agenda.  Listen, my heart goes out to the family of Kassandra Perkins and her child, but why must these people continue to abuse these situations by calling for unequivocal outlawing of guns?  Oh, that’s not what they want, you say?  Then how exactly do you explain the implication of Jason Whitlock and Bob Costas in saying that if Belcher didn’t have a gun, he and Perkins would still be alive?  That’s their whole point.  Get rid of guns so we can’t do bad things with them.  Protect us, oh thy almighty being of Government, which provides us with enduring sustenance and wisdom!  I’ll try to refrain from delving too deep into Second Amendment and gun right issues and the right to revolution an implications of allowing a government monopoly on firearms.  Although these are integral to my particular beliefs of gun rights, the issues with the Left’s way of thinking on this matter runs much deeper.

First, the assertion that Belcher and Perkins would be alive if he didn’t have a gun is highly disputable, but how have we reached the point of concession toward the notion that murderers who use guns are somehow victimized?  Victimized by who, by the managerial state government failing to enact laws to prevent him from buying a firearm? We’re just going to throw in our blanket support behind the government rounding up its citizens’ guns to prevent some crimes, many of which would occur regardless?  This excessive use of prior restraint sacrifices the rights of all for the safety of a few, relatively speaking.  (For time and convenience’s sake, I’m going to altogether ignore the aspect of the arguments dealing with the prevalence of weapon black markets and the ensuing growth of them and  resulting problems that would arise in making guns illegal, while also not delving into the outcomes of similar failed Progressive-championed historical precedents such as Prohibition).  You see, the burden of proof is not on us, as citizens, to prove the need of any right, including gun ownership.  It is on the state to provide definitive empirical evidence supporting that the right be taken away, and to receive the will of Congress and those of whom it represents.  I see no such evidence.

It is an ever-growing paradigm in society that continues to permeate deeper and deeper to our core: that it is the government’s job to make laws upon laws to shield us from ourselves, create a nanny state that provides us a cradle to grave nipple to suck upon, guide our ethical and social norms and ideals, and be our surrogate parental unit in charge of setting our curfews, paying our allowances, and developing prohibitive rules to coddle us.  Members of my generation intuit this ubiquitous paternalism and often fail to recognize that this results in the gradual erosion of our freedoms.  Whenever there is a problem in one’s life, my peers tend to immediately gravitate to the solution of “[so and so] should be illegal!” or “‘They’ should do something about that!” This mindset is the result of a third generation of the evolution in what people expect of government.  Self-reliance, self-accountability, perseverance, initiative, and the ability to accept that life carries obstacles are all endangered species.  They have been replaced by a statist initiative that is propelled by the impossible attempt to somehow eradicate the world of all suffering by putting child locks on our lives and the world around us.     Well, sure.  We could itemize a list that wraps around the block of all the situations where people could be saved by making something illegal.    We could drastically cut the rate of motor vehicle deaths by outlawing driving!  We could eradicate a multitude of household crimes with mandatory government surveillance of citizens’ homes!  Maybe, could even get rid of obesity by preventing people from buying the food they desire!  Oh, wait.  Yeah, they’re already trying that one.  A puppet tends to be quite obedient to the puppeteer who pulls its strings.

You see, Progressives are guided by a sense of utopian idealism: a worldview that inhibits their ability to see the world in a rational, logical, realistic manner and distorts their willingness and abilities to recognize how drastically the policing of our decisions and minimizing of our choices deteriorate our basic freedoms as citizens, human beings, and the derivation of the sovereign which is granted to them.

As for Costas, this was a massive abuse of his platform. I am a big fan of his professional work, and wish he would stick to that subject matter when he is working in acting in his capacity to cover it.  And I mean that wholeheartedly, even if he would have theoretically agreed with me.  People do not watch Sunday Night Football to be reminded of the divisiveness that separates so many in our nation.  Please, leave your misplaced holier-than-thou indignation for your pals Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow, or follow in suit of your colleague Keith Olbermann and defect from the sports biz to full-time political commentary.  Although, let’s be honest, would you have expected anything less from NBC?

In the words of Thomas Sowell, “There are no solutions, there are only trade-offs.”  In this case, the desired solution which is doomed to inevitably fail, will only result in the trade-off of your freedoms and liberties for a false sense of security and more government control of our lives.