Guess who wins

I had intended to get around to posting something useful yesterday, but I was hampered by a combination of severe sleep deprivation (no idea how that happened), exhaustion from a hard workout (because being a pussy is not an excuse, even when you're running on less than 4 hours of sleep), and the strain of recovering from what feels like (but probably isn't) some kind of bird flu.

Now that I'm somewhat conscious and coherent after getting a decent night's sleep, and my sinuses have unblocked themselves a little, it's back to the grind of posting random and sometimes useful shit aimed squarely at manly men. To whit:


I have to say, this is definitely one of Mat's better epic rap battles- not because the rhymes are particularly good (they aren't), but because mocking anti-gun liberal douchenozzles never stops being fun.

It's also not difficult to figure out which of the two makes better points. All you have to do is look at the "men" who support the liberal agenda- not just in the video, but in real life. Most of them look like complete manginas- effete little Millennial crybullies who look like they'd faint the moment you so much as clench your fist in their presence.

There are exceptions to this rule, by the way. Sylvester Stallone, for instance, is a strong advocate of gun control, despite his very obviously masculine personality, both in film and in real life. Henry Rollins- who wrote a very eloquent and quite influential article about the virtues of lifting heavy things and beasting out as a result- is very liberal and very anti-gun even though he is quite strong.

But people like that are very much the exceptions.

Most of the anti-gun types that I've met are not exactly the kind of men that you could rely on in a fight. Of the women among them, many are soft city-dwellers who have no real familiarity with violence and the ways to deter it, and/or are deeply ugly people physically, mentally, and spiritually.

By contrast, the men and women of my acquaintance who are in favour of firearms, and of weapons in general, understand that their safety is their responsibility, and theirs alone. After all, when shit goes down, the only person you can truly rely upon, every single time, is yourself- and if you don't understand that your physical well-being is one of the very few things in this world that you can actually control, then you're going to be in real trouble when the inevitable happens.

Ultimately the argument over guns is really an argument over personal responsibility. Liberals don't hate guns- they hate the idea of you and me owning them. They hate that idea because it pushes responsibility away from government and back down to the individual- which makes the individual far harder to control, therefore far more difficult to mold into the "ideal man" that the entire progressive philosophy is dedicated to creating.

The problem with that philosophy has always been apparent: perfection is impossible because Mankind is Fallen. We are all of us flawed and broken creations that nonetheless have the chance to return, via tremendous personal effort and spiritual sacrifice, to a loving and just Creator. We cannot become as gods; we can only attempt to return to God.

But to do so, we have to embrace the pain and the responsibilities that come with the joys of freedom.

The liberal psychology is not well suited to handling pain- it actively shies away from such a thing. Is it any wonder, then, that liberals have a difficult time accepting the right to, and the concomitant burden of, self-defence?

Comments

  1. It's a drum I beat over and over again, but it applies so well in many areas of life - Eric S Raymond's essay 'Ethics from the Barrel of a Gun."

    http://catb.org/~esr/guns/gun-ethics.html

    Nothing most of us will ever do combines the moral weight of life-or-death choice with the concrete immediacy of the moment as thoroughly as the conscious handling of instruments deliberately designed to kill. As such, there are lessons both merciless and priceless to be learned from bearing arms — lessons which are not merely instructive to the intellect but transformative of one's whole emotional, reflexive, and moral character.

    The first and most important of these lessons is this: it all comes down to you.

    No one's finger is on the trigger but your own. All the talk-talk in your head, all the emotions in your heart, all the experiences of your past — these things may inform your choice, but they can't move your finger. All the socialization and rationalization and justification in the world, all the approval or disapproval of your neighbors — none of these things can pull the trigger either. They can change how you feel about the choice, but only you can actually make the choice. Only you. Only here. Only now. Fire, or not?

    A second is this: never count on being able to undo your choices.

    If you shoot someone through the heart, dead is dead. You can't take it back. There are no do-overs. Real choice is like that; you make it, you live with it — or die with it.

    A third lesson is this: the universe doesn't care about motives.

    If your gun has an accidental discharge while pointed an unsafe direction, the bullet will kill just as dead as if you had been aiming the shot. I didn't mean to may persuade others that you are less likely to repeat a behavior, but it won't bring a corpse back to life.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The first and most important of these lessons is this: it all comes down to you.

      "I would rather be judged by twelve than carried by six"

      Delete
  2. Also - tangentally related:

    http://gunowners.org/answering-reciprocity-questions.htm

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Popular Posts