Why the Left hates Self-Defense

[harrygunner]

Strictly from an intellectual perspective, a viable
moral code should increase the overall good.

I considered this issue when I was a child. I'm recounting here
as I thought of it as a child.

My first response was to declare my unwillingness
to sink to the level of the perpetrator.

Then, I felt uneasy as I considered the result
of such a position: I'd be dead and the perpetrator
would still be around.

So, I immediately switched and realized the world
is better off in a violent confrontation if decent
people survive and scum bags die.

For the rest of my life, I've stayed with the position
that it is morally correct for decent people to use
violence to survive a confrontation with a criminal.

I believe an argument with this simple core, on what
is necessary for a legitimate moral code, could cause
some to pause as they argue for non-resistance.

Can't guarantee it would overcome cowardice, but, if
morality is the only issue, they may reconsider.

 

[1911Tuner]

Agenda

'Tis not the liberal who is the enemy. I know a good many liberals who are gun owners, hunters, shooters...and even a few who carry a pistol for self-protection, though many ascribe to the notion that no one "needs" certain weapon platforms, for they have no legitimate sporting purpose...but I'm workin' on that.

None that I know say that they wouldn't shoot in defense of life, limb, and family. Whether any of them actually would is a matter of conjecture, for none of us know what we'll do in the awful moment of truth unless we've already been there.

It's those who would rule who are after your right to bear arms for any reason...be it shooting skeet or self-defense. It's not about gun control and never has been. It's about people control. It's about power...and power is the great seducer. Power. Absolute power would be in the bag were it not for that pesky Second Amendment...so they take advantage of the liberal tendency toward the knee-jerk reaction in their attempt to garner support at the polls.

You see...(and I quote: )

"They may promise to govern well, but they mean to govern. They may promise to be good masters...but they mean to master."

 

[RPCVYemen]

I don't know if this "religious" remark is allowed here, but I'll try. Liberals in general don't believe in the innate sinfulness of man.They believe that all men are basically good.

I am not sure that the believe in the innate goodness of mankind is shared by all liberals. The "innate sinfulness of man" is (as far as I know) a strong belief of some Christian sects, but not of all. I don't know how non-Christians (liberal or conservative) feel about that.

They believe that all people have a "spark of god" inside.

That's odd - I would think that's a peculiarly Christian belief, based on the writings of that old liberal - Moses. For example, I would not expect secular liberals (or secular pacifists) to make an argument based on the "spark of G-d in every man" theory.

I noticed last week that the VT students were mourning the death of the evil CHO, along with the other students. Why? Because he was human, too, and because his twenty years of goodness out-weighed his one day of badness.

I mourn for Cho. He was a tormented man driven by demons (spiritual or psychological) to a horrible act. Had I been there with a weapon, I would have shot him to stop the killing - not because I hated him or would seek glory in killing him. I would have shot him to stop the killing - not because I had carefully weighed his relative goodness and badness.

I do believe that G-d created each one of us for some purpose - when he crated he life of that young man, I don't believe that G-d's intent was to have that man grow up and kill lots of innocent students.

I don't believe that G-d intended anyone to live in the pain he must have been in. So I would have shot him in a heartbeat, and then I would have mourned for the man G-d intended him to be.

Liberals believe in the goodness of man, therefore it is wrong to defend yourself, and wrong to kill ANY other human being, because you are killing someone innately good, in spite of the evil they may be doing NOW.

The religious pacifists that I know don't defend pacifism on the ground of the innate goodness of mankind. I don't know all religious pacifists, or all liberals, so there may be some who believe what you describe.

I think that belief in the "innate good" or "innate evil" of man has flip flopped among liberals and conservatives for centuries. At times, man is seen as a "noble savage", corrupted by society. At other times, man is considered an "inferior primitive", perfected only by society and laws.

The pacifists I know (largely Quakers) would argue that life is divine gift from G-d, and man may not take it away. To my eyes "Thou shalt not kill" is better translated "Thou shalt not murder" - but there are some folks who take it very serious, and their scriptures don't have an "expect in self defense" clause to that commandment.

As I say, I don't read the Decalogue that way, but they do. It's not so much the goodness of the killed that they are worried about - it's the goodness of the killer.

Mike

 

[Standing Wolf]

I used to know a few people who believed their lives weren't worth defending.

 

[XLMiguel]

Pacifism is a priviledge of the protected

I respect their right not to believe in guns.

Fine and dandy as long as they promise not to call someone (i.e. the cops) with a gun to come save them when there is danger at their door. I always wonder about the concept of personal responsibility relates to those types . . .

Me? I don't believe that all life is sacred. I do believe that there is Evil in the world, and that Evil is not dealt with by running away. Sometimes you must fight, and there are many things in Life that are worth fighting for. I have no problem with those who believe that violence should be a last resort (though sometimes, timing is everything -). Those who don't get that, are a waste of skin/oxygen and deserve to be 'food'.

 

[Stevie-Ray]

They believe that people should think, and act, collectively, not individually. They also deeply believe in collective self-defense. The government should be responsible for your protection, not you.

My God, I never realized it until now.



Leftists are The Borg!

 

[Notch]

I stopped "respecting their right to not like guns" when it became obvious that theyy didnt respect my right to own guns. Respect is earned and they have not done so.

 

[thexrayboy]

One of the underlying issues with those who refuse to take responsibility for their own defense is the issue of feelings. They feel that an individual should not be allowed to make life and death decisions regarding the taking of a life. They forget that the criminal has made that decision already and they are at the mercy of the criminal. They feel that the criminal should be arrested and given the chance to be "rehabilitated", after all that is how they would like to be treated if they were a criminal. Those who would disarm us feel that they should not defend themselves and further more they feel that no one else should unless they have been given a badge etc. to authorize that act. The anti self defense crowd think guns should be banned because they feel that
the risk of owning one far outweighs the minimal benefits of owning one. The
common theme among all of the arguments against personal self defense and for disarming the populace is feelings. Logic and the statistical evidence that backs up logical argument are irrelevant. They feel what they feel and the facts of the matter are irrelevant.

This situation would be annoying at most in the past. However at this point in time these illogical, touchy feely emotional slaves pose a real threat to the safety and liberty of reality based persons. A hundred plus years ago people who thought this way were routinely removed from the gene pool as a result of their innate inability to defend themselves. In the past 100-150 years we have short circuited the filter on the gene pool to the point where we now have two separate species with identical physiologies but disparate mental makeups. One is the normal person who realizes that the world is what it is and we must respond accordingly or die. The other species, homo stupidicus
feel rather than thinks and will make choices that are basically species suicide and insist on taking us with them.

That is the essence of much that is wrong in our country. We have become so successful at controlling our environment and removing inherent dangers that we have allowed a subspecies to evolve and flourish that feel rather than think and wish to take all of us down their road to self destruction.

 

[grampster]

One of my best friends falls into the category of "liberal". He's got more guns than I do. His wife is so infuriatingly liberal that if I didn't lover her as a dear friend of 45 years, I'd slap her silly. I've changed my tune about labels since I got my first computer in 2000 and and stumbled onto a few gun boards, especially THR and TFL where there is a back and forth conversation. This is much better than just reading a short article that asks one to draw a conclusion in a few moments. We can't just stuff people into categories. I've been guilty of that. I work at avoiding doing that. I'm thankful that I've been exposed to many hundreds of folks throughout our country and the world who have enlarged my thought processes in that regard.

Some folks just really believe that humans are inherently good. I don't believe that for an instant myself. 63 years on this earth, with a father that taught me the value of paying attention to things is the reason why. I think people are inherently bad and need to be civilized. I could give you a lot of reasons and we could wrestle with that for a long time. I just give you the following to contemplate.

Children don't have to be taught how to be bad, they seem to come by it quite naturally. They do have to be taught to be good. If you think about this for awhile, I think you might agree.

Some folks just don't grasp that evil walks the earth. They think reason is the highest element of mankind. Maybe it is. But some folks just aren't into reason. That's why we need to be prepared to cover our own 6.

I read a report in the local paper a couple days ago. The reporter purported to interview some of the survivors at VT. In one classroom, a French language class, 12 people, including the prof., died and only a handful survived. The narrative seemed to indicate that at least one of the survivors related that he watched the shoes and legs of the shooter and didn't want to look at him. He actually laid on the floor and listened to him reload and did nothing. The shooter left the room and came back and shot a few more people and still no one did anything. The murderer killed himself in this room. If this account is accurate, and I don't know if it is, but if it is, how in the name of anything that is human, could anyone subscribe to pacifism?

Please don't misunderstand the above comment. I am not walking on the graves of the victims. No one really knows how they'd react to a situation like that. But I was struck by the commentary of the victim himself and I wondered about the morally relativistic society we are building in that law abiding people are not to be ready to challenge violence. There seems to be a denial by elements, educated elements, of our society that there are times for which we should not only be prepared to defend ourselves, but that we need to understand that evil actually does exist. I see a denial of this fact by a growing segment in the West: Everyone's opinion has value, no one is wrong, no one is bad, just misunderstood.

 

[RPCVYemen]

My first response was to declare my unwillingness
to sink to the level of the perpetrator.

There are many pacifists who adopt this position. They say - and I don't think that it is without merit - "If killing is wrong, should I permit an evil person to cause me to do wromg?"

Then, I felt uneasy as I considered the result
of such a position: I'd be dead and the perpetrator
would still be around.

Any intellectually honest pacifist understrnd this outcome. Every pacifiist that I have ever met has accepted that absolute pacifism can lead to dying as a response to evil.

So, I immediately switched and realized the world
is better off in a violent confrontation if decent
people survive and scum bags die.

Most pacifists do not agree with this step of your analysis. They would argue that the best witness for pacifism is dying in the face of violence. They would argue that's the only way that we will get to non-violent world.

Quakers, particularly early Quakers died fairly regularlty as what they would call "witnesses to the truth". They had found a particulare message in New Testament, and were willing to die rather than violate (their view of) Jesus's message.

Here is a sample of one Quaker's testimony as she was benig escorted to the gallows. I essence, she is dying as a witness to the evil of the law she opposed, in order that the law be repealed and other not die. She is dying for the salvation of those killing her - to prevent her persecutors from suffering from the "bloodguiltiness" of killing other people:

Nay, I came to keep bloodguiltiness from you, desireing you to repeal the unrighteous and unjust law made against the innocent servants of the Lord. Nay, man, I am not now to repent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Dyer

For the rest of my life, I've stayed with the position
that it is morally correct for decent people to use
violence to survive a confrontation with a criminal.

I agree with you.

I believe an argument with this simple core, on what
is necessary for a legitimate moral code, could cause
some to pause as they argue for non-resistance.

Don't confuse pacifism with non-resistence. For example, it's clear that Mary Dyer resisted an unjust law to the point of death. And I suspect that her actions were more effective than killing those about to kill her. There is some evidence that her willingness to die was an extraordinary witness and had a major impact on the development of religious tolertaion in the United States.

Quakers in particular would argue that they were bound to resist the point of death. The founder of Quakerism was beaten with some regularity for his preaching.

Pacifists of all stripes would argue that "what is necessary for a legitimate moral code" is to act morally. For many of them, kiling is not moral. They would argue that you cannot support a moral code through an immoral action.

Mike

 

[baz]

Several of you seem to be conflating "burglary" with "threat to self/family."

This is not the case. These are distinct events and should be treated as such.

I didn't see that. I did see a reference to "armed robbery." IAC, I would bet that most of us agree that if the only threat is loss of property, then that doesn't justify shooting someone. Sheesh, that's the law, for goodness sake. But if someone breaks into my house, is armed, and I'm there, that's no longer burglary: it is robbery. And in that case, if I have the chance, I will act preemptively; I will not wait around to find out just what violence the person had in mind when they decided to bring along a gun. I will presume they meant me or my family harm, and will act to prevent it.

 

[SWMAN]

Whatever you all decide, just leave me and my guns alone!!!!

 

[Brian Williams]

No I can not back up My statement of most, but look at the social engineering that has gone thru the school systems of America, Look at what is allowed on broadcasting that is a substitute for reality. Look at the socialist agendas that are spouted by most politicians and the media and their claims that "They" want to help us.

Why is it my son cannot draw a rifle in class with out having to get permission first and why can't my daughter take her Swiss Army Knife to class? Becasue Drawing guns and having SAKs is evil and "we" the Liberal school system, need to change their minds.

 

[cracked butt]

Self Defense-
One of those dangerous ideas where a person is expected to be responsible for their own life and well being.

 

[IllHunter]

The reality of man...

As I ponder the deep thoughts of some of the posters here, I review my own history and say, my nature is neither good nor evil, both reside in me and I choose which controls my actions. Mostly I am good, occasionaly I am bad. The yin and yang, the light and dark, the freedom of choice and the seduction of evil. And for pete's sake stop refering to the anti' s as liberals. They are leftists without a doubt, I know because I'm a liberal and I carry a gun.

 

[RPCVYemen]

Look at the socialist agendas that are spouted by most politicians

When you say "socialist", is that more or less just a name to call someone, or do you mean that you believe that most liberals are socialists?

Here's what I find as the definition of "socialism:

a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

My guess is that the percnetage of (American) liberals who would advocate true socalism is tiny - amost imperceptibele outside of academia. I would think of socialists as the kind of people who live on a kibbutz in Israel. And they can be heavily armed.

Why is it my son cannot draw a rifle in class with out having to get permission first and why can't my daughter take her Swiss Army Knife to class? Becasue Drawing guns and having SAKs is evil and "we" the Liberal school system, need to change their minds.

If you think it's only political liberals who want the stupud "No Tolerance" weapons at public schools, you are wrong. Most parents I have talked to (even some pretty conservative Baptist types) believe that "No Tolerance" policies about weapons in schools is a good thing. Unless they own weapons and shoot a lot (a very tiny percent of the American population), they drink the "No Tolerance" Kool Aid. I say "own weapons and shoot a lot" because I have had disucssions with hunters who buy the "gun free zone" policy about public schools. So there are folks who own weapons and buy the "gun free" stuff.

America has become gun shy. In the words of Pogo, "We have seen the enemy and he is us!"

If blaming that on phantoms (like "the socialists") helps you sleep at night, then that's fine with me. But it's also delusional.

Mike

 

[PAshooter]

Interesting and thought provoking thread. My $0.02:

As a Christian I've always struggled with the concept of original sin, and the philosophy that we are inherently sinful creatures. How, if we are created in God's image, can we be sinful? I can't resolve this inconsistency, so I move on...

I believe that good and evil exist, and that we have all been given free will by our Creator to choose which path we take. Most people, I believe, choose to follow the good. Most, but not all.

So what are we - the good - to do about those who chose evil? The pacifist approach doesn't work. If good cowers, or does nothing, in the face of evil, will not evil eventually triumph? Is this the world our Creator intended?

Who was it that said all that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing?

Or to put it another way, those who beat their swords into plowshares end up plowing for those who don't.

Sorry - I chose good, and will fight to defend good against evil. It is the only logical choice.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Read my signature for my thinking on why they hate self defense.

 

[jpk1md]

The brand of American Socialism that troubles me most is one where the Liberal Lefties increasingly "allow" (for the time being) private ownership but at the same time continue to crank up regulation and increasingly expand taxes etc to accommodate their redistribution of wealth and ever expanding entitlements.

It does NOT encourage people, small business and hard work to better oneself and children....it does not foster the historical American Dream of a better like through persistence and hard work so that the next generation is better off/can go to college....instead it fosters the notion of a Nanny Gov't with ever expanding entitlements.

 

[freakazoid]

They are collectivists, and Socialists. They believe that people should think, and act, collectively, not individually. They also deeply believe in collective self-defense. The government should be responsible for your protection, not you.

I would have to disagree a lot with this part. I am an anarchist/communist, ie. "leftist", and I strongly believe in our inalienable 2nd Amendment right. Socialism isn't about people thinking and acting collectively, although many things are used collectively, much like Jesus taught. Socialism is just the transitionary period, although I do disagree with it, from capitalism to communism. Communism/anarchy, which is stateless and classless and which means that there is no government, is the true goal of socialists. The sad thing is that at the leftist board that I frequent there are a lot that believe in gun control, but there also are a lot, such as myself, that believe in no gun control. This just goes to show that the whole conservative/liberal thing doesn't really work on this issue.

 

[Riz58]

"I would have to disagree a lot with this part. I am an anarchist/communist, ie. "leftist", and I strongly believe in our inalienable 2nd Amendment right."

Freakazoid: Your position statement is logically inconsisten. As an anarchist, you cannot believe in any constitutional government; therefore, you cannot believe in constitutional rights.

As a communist, you believe that a totaliarian regime is required to bring about the communal "peace" you dream of - also the antithesis of anarchy. Despite almost one hundred years of effort, it was interesting that this peaceful, commual society never resulte - quite the opposite.

Finally ,anarchy has reigned in the past. The result is a form of goverance we call "tribes" People band together for what they see as their own common good, and then go take, steal, kill, or destroy that of another group of people because there is no "law" against it.

The early Christians tried communal living, and it failed miserably among a group that was very dedicated to each other. (See "Acts"), and Paul even rebuked many in the community saying that those who do not work should not eat.

Better re-examine the "philosophy" and try to be internally consistent.

 

[freakazoid]

therefore, you cannot believe in constitutional rights.

I believe in the ideas behind those rights. I believe in rights given to us by God.

As a communist, you believe that a totaliarian regime is required to bring about the communal "peace" you dream of - also the antithesis of anarchy.

I do not. That is why I am against the socialism, the dictatorship of the proletariat, although I do think that it is better that what we have now but I still strongly disagree with it. What you, and most people in general, think of

Finally ,anarchy has reigned in the past. The result is a form of goverance we call "tribes" People band together for what they see as their own common good, and then go take, steal, kill, or destroy that of another group of people because there is no "law" against it.

Are laws stopping people from doing that now?

The early Christians tried communal living, and it failed miserably among a group that was very dedicated to each other.

How so? Also the Amish live in a communal type setting yet they have not failed.

(See "Acts"), and Paul even rebuked many in the community saying that those who do not work should not eat.

Ok, doesn't hurt my belief any.

Acts 4:

32All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. 33With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. 34There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.

Anarchy in action^

1 Samuels 8, The LORD God telling the people that only He is to be King over them.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=9&chapter=8&version=31

A basic idea about what we believe,
http://question-everything.mahost.org/Socio-Politics/BasicAnarchy.html

But this is getting a little off topic.

 

[Alexfubar]

Omit individuals and look at the Organizations.

ALL American Gun Control Efforts today come from the Left.
ALL American Gun rights effort are led by the Right.

Sure we all know common sense Democrats /lefties that wouold protect their families. But the Organizations that claim their support want to STRIP me of My Rights.

Voting for Democrats furthers the AntiConstitutionalist Gun banners amongst us. Sorry , but true.

 

[harrygunner]

RPCVYemen

I appreciate your responses. Good stuff.

Questions of morality, existence, what value and values we hold, are the questions
of the ages.

Some people spend time to consider basic philosophical issues, others live with their
accidents of birth, unquestioned.

I've decided diversity of thought in humans is like biological diversity.

It's been said any intelligent entity can hold inconsistent thoughts simultaneously.
This is similar to genetic mutations, leading to different and changing belief systems.

But, always, there is survival of the fittest.

That's why as a child, I decided to fight back.

 

[sadhvacman]

I would just like to point out something that christians often miss... regarding capital punishment and gun control.and that is... that it is a sin to commit murder. to kill is not a sin. In fact it is a commandment to kill rapists and murderers.