The inalienable human right of self-defense is the keystone of liberty, so why aren’t we treating it that way?
Two recent stories that involve freedom of speech and the right of self-preservation illustrate why we have to be precise in the words we use to frame the issue. The arch of liberty is built upon the keystone of the inalienable human right of self-defense. This critically important concept buttresses our other human rights, that is why it is the first target of tyrants. Taking away the people’s ability to resist oppression always invites more oppression.
It is a severe mistake to couch the issue in terms of inanimate objects with nonsensical phrases such as ‘anti-gunners’ or similar terminology. Using the term ‘gun’ misdirects the argument away from the true purpose of gun control. This is a debate over liberty, not inanimate objects of aluminium or steel.
The left loves that we use the gun instead of liberty.
It is always advantageous to use the proper terms in a debate, this is why the national socialist left puts so much effort into controlling speech and the words we use. In the debate over the inalienable human right of self-defense, we of the pro-liberty right put ourselves at a severe disadvantage when we couch the issue in their terms. Consider this list of common phrases from the issue and how they sound in terms of liberty than on inanimate objects:
- Gun control – Liberty control
- Gun reform – Liberty reform
- Pro-gun – Pro-liberty
- Anti-gun – Anti-liberty
Note how the second set using the term liberty sets the proper tone. Most leftists would be proud to announce that they are ‘anti-gun’, but it would be doubtful that they would say they are anti-liberty, even though they mean the same thing. They still like to pretend to be supporters of freedom, they cannot face themselves as being against the concept. They like to think of themselves as liberators, not tyrants, although that is effectively what they have become.
Abuse of the 2nd Amendment leads to abuse of the 1st Amendment.
We can prove that the debate over the inalienable human right of self-defense is really over liberty and not inanimate objects. With two stories that show the 2nd Amendment debate has expanded into a debate over the 1st amendment.
The first comes from Yahoo Lifestyle about a liberty prevention advocate who has her knickers in a twist over some humorous signs being sold in her local Hobby Lobby. Apparently her disdain for the inalienable human right of self-defense extends to the freedom of speech as well.
The second story hails from the New York Times entitled: Free Speech Is Killing Us. That begins with the absurd line: “There has never been a bright line between word and deed.” Continuing on with the idea that since we’re restricting one inalienable human right, why not do the same to another?
As in the case of the 2nd Amendment, the restrictions on 1st Amendment demanded by the authoritarian socialist left will only redound to others. Leftist politicians and celebrities will always have their armed security, just as the birdcage liner of record will always be able to exercise their civil liberties and rights. It will only be those left deems to be beneath them that will have rights sacrificed.
The bottom line: Rights are like potato crisps, the left can’t destroy just one.
This is what happens when the ever-virtuous people of the national socialist left begin restricting everyone else’s liberty. Leftists depriving the people of some of their rights in their Utopian quest will always result in other liberties ending up on the chopping block. It begins with an obsession with gun confiscation, morphing into speech controls, then having to get rid of basic privacy rights.
This is why this is an issue of liberty and not inanimate objects. While oppression starts with assaults on weapons, it quickly expands into other areas. People tend to take their inalienable human right of self-defense seriously and want to speak out on the subject, so the ever oppressive left will make the counter move in taking away those rights as well as was illustrated. Soon enough the right to privacy [at least in this realm] will soon need to be addressed, with the government having vested interest in what everyone is doing in private, lest it have a negative effect on the ‘greater good’.
Properly calling it liberty control frames the argument against those on the national socialist left who only pretend to be liberal. It also keeps the issue under one label as the left lifts their sights on other freedoms. That is why the term should be liberty control and not gun control.