December 12, 2018

Two Totalitarians Debate Guns

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

It’s what’s wrong with everything!

I’m reading this morning an article in the Bangor Daily News about a doctor and a sportsman debating guns. It became clear that both debaters were totalitarians and showed definite signs of ignorance of facts.

Here’s one example of the what was presented in this so-called debate: “During my time at the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, I was proud of SAM’s support for successful legislation that took guns away from those served with temporary protection orders. At that time only permanent orders gave the judge the option of taking away a person’s guns…

“Unfortunately it is very difficult for the police to get authority to enter that person’s house and make sure the guns are gone.”

This sounds like the talk out of the fascist President Trump’s mouth when he said he would confiscate guns and worry about due process later.

The irony and hypocrisy of the debate appear when the other side of the discussions says: “The rights listed in the Bill of Rights are not absolute, but rather apply only if they do not deprive others of their rights.”

Both sides appear to want to disrespect a person’s granted and inalienable right to choose how they will protect themselves, one by taking guns and asking questions later (I guess that destroys any sense of innocent until proven guilty, i.e. Due Process) and the other by pretending that it is a just thing to deprive a person of a right so long as it fits conveniently into his narrative.

Ignorance in the debate shows in two ways. One, when one person suggests that gun ownership is all about hunting, and two, when the same person compares as equal a violation of a person’s constitutional and inalienable right to self-defense in the name of public safety to “lead in gasoline, sinkers and paint; mercury thermometers; dioxin in our rivers; asbestos in our ceilings and brakes; and smoking in public places, to name a few.”

I was reading another article posted on this website about social engineering, behavioral engineering for the purpose of belief engineering. In the Comments section was a post made about the Stockholm Syndrome. Defined as “feelings of trust or affection felt in certain cases of kidnapping or hostage-taking by a victim toward a captor,” it is becoming more apparent that our society is loaded with victims (or willing participants) of this psychological phenomenon.

To fully understand how this applies to people, we must understand that “kidnapping or hostage-taking” can be either literal or figurative. There are many ways in which we are kidnapped or taken hostage over our free will. Feelings of affection and/or trust for those whose bent it is to diminish and eliminate our freedoms and individuality is being displayed on many fronts often without the awareness of individuals that they are lobbying for the rope that will eventually hang them.

To undergo debate that involves ceding rights as well as declaring that no right is absolute is eagerly playing into the hands of the hangmen. Denial of the intentions of the executioner is in and of itself a display of Stockholm Syndrome. We see this managest daily with trust for our government and the belief that this government has never, is not, and never will have tyrannical intentions toward placing you in slavery. We are slaves now and deny it. How much more difficult can it be to reach saturation?

Why are we even having this debate? To debate this issue is denying that anyone has an unquestioned right given them by their Creator to protect themselves, their family, and property. Willingness to remove that right is a call to place control over that right in the hands of a centralized authority. This now becomes a government-meted privilege, in which any authority with the power to parcel out rights has the same power to take them away. Our “syndrome” prevents us from that realization.

Is that what this is all about? Or is it just plain ignorance. Maybe it’s both!

 

 

Share