Skip to comments.Why Are You Opposed To Ending Violence?
Posted on 01/13/2013 3:34:01 AM PST by Kaslin
There’s an epidemic in this country, something that has or will affect all of us in our lives. And the government needs to act to protect us from those who may do us harm. This plague is particularly felt in schools. The children must be made safe.
President Obama, bravely speaking out against this horror, said, “We have an obligation to ensure that our schools are safe for all our kids.” Amen, Mr. President. Amen.
The best course of action to protect as many of our citizens, particularly children, as possible is to place sensible restrictions on this right we all share so as to prevent it from being used in a violent way. We can’t stop all acts of this violence, but if we could even save one person from suffering this fate…it would be immoral not to act.
I’m talking, of course, about the First Amendment, about words.
Every year, thousands of people, many of whom are children, are bullied by words. They’re made to feel bad for being overweight, having acne, braces, or messy hair. The list of things about which people are made to feel badly about is endless.
What’s worse is all the accidental bullying that takes place each year. People can build up a thick skin against drive-by “lard-assing” or an occasional swirly, but the accidental bullying that takes place through someone having more than you do or winning a game against you is hard to handle. These are the silent victims who don’t grab the front page of newspapers.
The horror of losing a game has sent many children to therapists in the hope of rehabilitating their self-esteem. The hair product industry has profited off the tears of people with cowlicks for too long.
Yes, words are sometimes used in self-defense. But for every, “I know you are but what am I?” there are countless more, “Your mamas.” And they can be used for fun, for making jokes. But for every joke there are untold “Nice shirt, geek!” cracks.
There are 171,476 words listed as currently in use according to the Oxford English Dictionary, and another 47,156 considered “obsolete.” Do we need that many words?
When you consider the average person has a vocabulary of 35,000 to 50,000 words, clearly we do not.
There are First Amendment extremists who will tell you freedom of speech is absolute, but it’s not. You can’t yell fire in a crowed theater; you can’t threaten the life of the president, and so on.
If we just banned a few, just the semi-mean words, how many tears might we save? Does anyone really need the word “loser”? People who have “loser” in their vocabulary are just as likely to use it in a fit of anger in their home or, in a lot of cases, in a self-deprecating way against themselves.
No one needs the word “loser,” or for that matter “jerk,” “moron,” “idiot,” or countless other semi-mean words. As the media has told us, words can kill.
First Amendment extremists would have you believe they have a right to use these words for whatever purpose they want. But banning them will not change Scrabble, Words With Friends or crossword puzzles. And the hurt feelings saved by eliminating these words would be immeasurable.
I know many First Amendment extremists will say I’m calling for punishing the innocent for the acts of a very few. But anyone with these words in their vocabulary, even if only use them in private, could become a user of them in public.
And most of the words these First Amendment extremists revel in being able to freely enjoy were not even invented at the time the First Amendment was written. The Founding Fathers could not have conceived of something as nasty as “cyber-nerd.” So their defense falls flat.
I hope you join me in my push to end speech violence.
This is, of course, absurd. No one would think to restrict one person’s free speech because someone else hurt others with their words.
None of these arguments make any sense, yet they have all been used in gun control advocate’s assault on the Second Amendment.
They say, “No one needs” this or that gun. But, as the Great One Mark Levin first said, it’s the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs. You don’t have to justify your exercising a right to Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Piers Morgan or anyone.
They also say certain guns weren’t around at the time and couldn’t have been imagined by our Founding Fathers; that the Second Amendment only applies to muskets since that’s what there was at the time. If that’s the yardstick by which they want to measure our rights, inform them there was a much higher likelihood of them envisioning advances in firearms technology than there is them envisioning television, radio or the Internet. If the Second Amendment applies to only arms available at the time, the First should work the same way. Freedom of speech should apply only to talking, movable Guttenberg Press type printing and things written with a quill. They readily point out the absurdity of that but can’t justify it in the context of their argument.
As for Vice President Biden trotting out shooting victims as experts, well, they are as free as anyone to have their opinions. But to claim someone has more authority or is an expert because they’ve been a victim is akin to me saying I’m a doctor because I’ve had surgery.
Progressives have wanted to restrict our right to defend ourselves for decades. They happily wrap themselves in the First Amendment while wiping themselves with the Second. Even if you choose not to exercise that right, we cannot allow it or any of our rights to be chipped away under the guise of false compassion.
In the wake of Sandy Hook, this current push is being draped in the blanket of “for the children.” Few excuses have been used to perpetrate more horrors on liberty than the banner “for the children.” It’s an emotional appeal meant to override logic and drown out the question, “Why are my rights being restricted because someone else abused theirs?” They use it because it works with too many uninformed people who’ve never been exposed to the fallacy of that sort of appeal. History is rife with examples of people willingly surrendering their sovereignty to an emotional appeal without realizing it…until it’s too late.
Have you noticed how Democrats and the Democrat Media Complex aren’t using the words “gun control”? They’re using “gun violence.” Government must act to prevent “gun violence.” They’re all using it and it’s no accident. The word “control” doesn’t poll well, but who can be against stopping “gun violence”? They frame the argument in such a way as to guarantee the easy demonization of their opponent. Facts don’t matter, and the media will do its part to ensure they don’t enter the discussion.
Progressives are organized and incredibly well-funded. You will hear about the budget of the National Rifle Association, but the NRA’s entire budget is a drop in the bucket compared to the left-wing despotic billionaire machine seeking to “fundamentally transform” this nation. NBC News will get its stories from the widely discredited Media Matter for America, the fascistic front group for the dreams of Stalin, Mussolini, Mao and all of history’s greatest monsters.
If we sit by and depend on common sense or good actors to prevail, we will lose. Liberty will lose. We can’t keep fighting to lose our rights more slowly. It’s time to regain lost ground. But first we must stop losing ground. Here, this line, can be that spot. It can be the time stop the advance of tyranny. But it’s up to you to speak up and educate those who don’t know they’ve been miseducated, that they’re being lied to.
We don’t have an NBC News or a Media Matters because we have integrity. We may not have a megaphone and a machine behind us, but there’s no noise we can’t speak over if we speak together.
By the way, nearly every argument I made in the first half of this piece is made, in one form or another, in the left-wing’s push to “end bullying.” If you think those arguments are absurd, and a push like that could never happen, just wait till you see what happens if they successfully wipe out the Second Amendment.
We are well on our way, almost there in fact.
Bullying and violence are the foundation of government.
> Bullying and violence are the foundation of government.
And ironic that they want an anti-bullying act which is just really being set in place for the limp-wristed variety and liberal athiest nerds of course but more importantly for the government to get their toot in the door to regulate human behavior; one of the very freedoms we still have at this moment. That he has even moved the peoples minds to this place to consider allowing the government to regulate human behavior illustrates the corruption in his and his followers thinking. Surely they can see the path that this will lead us down....nah probably not and they claim to be so smart...Morons...
“And the government needs to act to protect us from those who may do us harm.”.
Hows that going to work when it IS the gubmint that wants to take our guns away so we can no longer protect ourselves?
Compromise is defeat on an installment plan.
Arm teachers. We don’t have firefighters in every school, but we do have fire extinguishers.
Did either of you even bother to check out this guys About page before posting a link to his kooky website?
My name is Jay Johnson, and I created this website on 12/21/12.
My story is the greatest true story ever told.
I concluded based on my story, that I am the New Age Messiah, and have since been "New Age Messiah" on line.
I am the only person in the world to solve LOST, and the Goddess who spoke to me appears in the show.
What motivated you to put up the website?
12/21/12 I woke up and having my first cup of coffee, I was heart led and inspired to get the domain name and create a website. I didn't connect the date to the act until a week or so later. But since I am the New Age Messiah, with my Look Your Heart in the Mirror as the new revelation from the Goddess Tefnut, aka Ma'at, of Egypt, I thought the date was significant.
If you are still interested in what he has to say, he also sells bumper stickers for $5 a pop:
And if he raises enough money, perhaps he can finally get the mental health treatment he so desperately needs. Is the the sort of crap we want FR to be associated with?
One alternative that no one has mentioned would be to create a federal reservation for mentally ill people *the individual states* have determined “present a threat of harm to others.”
This provides several needed checks to such institutionalization. To start with, someone is referred from one of several directions as a “threat to others”, to a civil or criminal judge, who will assign a psychiatrist to evaluate them.
If the psychiatrist deems them a “threat to others”, then the judge can decide to refer them to that state’s mental health authorities. If they on a second examination determine that the person is a “threat to others”, then they can refer them to the federal reservation.
On arrival there, they receive yet another independent psychiatric evaluation and diagnosis. If they have committed some crime, they are then sent to one part of the reservation, if not, to another part.
Then they are further subdivided into treatable and not treatable. At the end of each year, patients are again diagnosed to determine if they are still a “threat to others”. If not, then they are returned to their home state, under supervised care.
1. Those governments that have banned guns have then executed many of their citizens.
2. Those demanding gun bans are demanding victims be disarmed so bad guys don't have to work so hard to kill them.
3. Those demanding gun bans do so claiming there is so much violence warranting it somehow, yet, anyone wanting a gun to defend themselves from such violence is just being "paranoid".
4. Liberals have the mind of a 7 year old: They yell, "Daddy, Daddy! Fix it!", and believe gun bans will solve violence, not understanding guns are not the only tools of violence and gun don't kill people, people kill people.
5. Liberals believe anyone with a gun is a violent murderer waiting to happen, so I guess just because a liberal woman is equipped to be a prostitute means she is one.
6. To liberals, police officers, who qualify with their duty weapons once or twice a year, have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.
7. To liberals, police operate with backup which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians", who must face criminals alone and, therefore, need less ammunition
8. To liberals, citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection, but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators that work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.
9. To liberals, "assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people, which is why the police need them to kill large numbers of people for some reason.
10. To liberals, private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.
11. To liberals, private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the police are the professional gun slingers even if they take longer to arrive than the bad guy needs to kill their victims.
12. To liberals, trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you dont see police officers with one on their duty weapon.
13. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need guns and those cities have the highest murder and violence rates. Again, We the People are only being paranoid if we want a gun to defend ourselves from that violence.
14. Washington DCs low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control. Wait, huh?
15. To a liberal, the more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.
16. Liberals claim other devices like oven spray or bear spray will better deter a criminal because an intruder can be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.
17. To a liberal, a woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
18. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns and Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.
19. To a liberal, these phrases,
"right of the people peaceably to assemble,"
"right of the people to be secure in their homes,"
"enumeration's herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people,"
"The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people,"
all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers only to the State.
20. To a liberal, guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly but so simple to use that they make murder easy.
21. To a liberal, ordinary people in the presence of a gun turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed, so we should ban guns.
22. To a liberal, guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows and police stations.
23. To a liberal, a majority of the population supports gun control so we should do it, just like a majority of the population once supported owning slaves.
24. To a liberal, most people can't be trusted with a gun so we should have laws banning guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.
25. To a liberal, the 2nd Amendment was written during a time when muskets were the norm, but they do not agree that the 1st amendment should only pertain to yelling in the town square and printing using quill pens and manual printing presses.
26. To a liberal, we should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.
Liberals know so much dont they. They are just so right about everything, so lets show a few of their perfectly stupid statements of the past.
"It is already too late to avoid mass starvation." Dennis Hayes, chief organizer--Earth Day 1, 1970
"At least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years." Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day 1, 1970
"By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine." Prof. Peter Gunter, North Texas State University, 1970
"In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution... by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half..." `Life' Magazine, January 1970
"Air pollution... is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone." Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day 1, 1970
"By the year 2000... there won't be any more crude oil." Ecologist Kenneth Watt
"In 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct." Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary, Smithsonian Institute, Earth Day 1, 1970
"The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years... the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age." Kenneth Watt
"In the 1970s and 1980s, hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash program embarked upon now." Paul Ehrlich, "The Population Bomb" (1968)
Yes, there is a store for that.
Cain slew Abel...no gun just a violent murder. Violence we have with us always guns or not as long as there are people or animals. Even some plants are violent.
I was merely putting the original posters link into a clickable format, thus I could then read it. I never got to the part of his website you mention, because I thought his take was rather implausible and really did not investigate it any further.