Well, he should have used a box-cutter--no possible threat or harm could come of that....
Taking a general view, in order to oppose something, we have to know how its proponents think--"get into their heads" if you will. The fundamental belief we're fighting here is the moral equivalence of all things--a sick and perverted form of "liberty," as some would consider it. While one of the tenets of such a philosophy is that people are allowed to do pretty much anything they want, no matter how depraved it might be to those with traditional moral values, obviously violence and murder are still abhorred, as are the instruments that are often used to deliver them, namely guns. The problem is that there is no moral distinction between the victim and perpetrator of a crime. If you are forced to kill a bad guy in self-defense, his death is exactly as tragic as yours would have been, only you're the bad guy now because you did the killing, not him (furthermore you premeditated it by deliberately arming yourself). I know it's not easy, but try to see that this is for some a deeply held, quasi-religious kind of belief.
This goes hand-in-hand with the belief that ordinary people are not responsible for their actions and should not be trusted with responsibility--that's what the government is for. If somebody wrongs somebody else, then it is all of society that failed to make him/her a better person ("It takes a village"), and if victims are harmed or die then it is the failure of the government for not protecting them by enforcing the laws better or more quickly. Natural laws such as the right of self-defense need not apply because they are part of a "savage" world that these people are trying to leave behind.
The only thing that does not enjoy the "protection" of moral equivalence from all responsibility is people like us. Unless we have a badge from the government or at minimum are employed as private security for somebody else, those who exhibit independence and self-reliance, and stubbornly refuse to buy into the "enlightened" (their word) philosophy that I've just described are considered dangerous wild cards, maybe even "evil." The latter is not a word that the "enlightened" ones would ever use in speech, since for example the typical serial rapist is merely a victim of society who can't think for himself, but nevertheless that's how they view those who take responsibility for their actions, as well as the safety of themselves and their families into their own hands. We're not viewed as a permanent problem, though, as they think it will someday be possible to indoctrinate everybody from a young enough age, but while we're here we exist outside of the "ideal" society which they strive to create, which makes it all the more imperative that they take our guns away now rather than after they've finished reforming society (that and the "fact" that guns inspire unthinking people to kill others when they otherwise would not have...right...
).
Last edited:
