We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
I think we linked this piece once, but I can't remember. It's from Munchkin Wrangler (h/t, Right Wing Prof), and begins thus:
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
some of what i'm attenpting to articulate in the post above
comes from the "playground tyrant" analogy:
the young male bully threatens physical harm
to his percieved "opponents and inferiors".
the young female bully,
(who in contemporary "discourse"
would appear "not to exist") threatens harm
to her percieved "opponents and inferiors"
thru gossip,social ostracism,humiliation,and other forms of coercion.
since its more gut feeling and trend-watching,
i can't specify exactly why,
but i think several forms of 21st C. tyrrany
will grow from this type of "social engineering"
ie "female bully" vs male bully tactics,
including(eventually) the confiscation of private firearms
(ie no need for a SWAT team at the door,just civil condemnation as an islamophobe/racist/homophobe/reactionary/etc)
This seems to be a specious argument. The author assumes that any gun owner will necessarily be rational and interested in discussion. Nice if true, but it is rarely true so he argument fails on being simply stupid about people.