Next City: In a war, anything can be a weapon. In a particularly ruthless war, such as the conflict that has been raging in Syria for more than three years, those weapons are often turned against civilians, making any semblance of normal life impossible. Such is the case, experts say, with the way the nation’s water supply is being manipulated to inflict suffering on the population. According to an article posted by Chatham House, a London-based independent policy institute, water [read more]
It’s one thing to accept and understand that plenty of reasonable and responsible people own guns and that is their constitutional right. It is another to be so outrageously afraid of legitimate and sane restrictions that you have a situation in which it is entirely permissible to carry a loaded weapon into an event that carries a threat that the people attending it will “die screaming.”
It is terrifying enough to face a barrage of harassment and threats and continue to work and speak out. It’s harder when what ought to be fairly straightforward safety precautions cannot be taken because of permissive gun laws. This isn’t what freedom looks like. This is what the Second Amendment trouncing the First does. And as Sarkeesian explains it, “To be clear: I didn’t cancel my USU talk because of terrorist threats, I canceled because I didn’t feel the security measures were adequate.”
The writer is of course talking about the cancellation of the feminist speech at the Utah State University due to a threat, or for reasons as explained above (in protest of “permissive gun laws”). Ignoring the fact that the two paragraphs cited directly contradict each other and offer differing accounts of the concern, occasionally collectivists open up their true thinking to the world. We all know what they really believe, but it’s nice to be able to point it out to those who don’t follow these issues.
On the one hand, collectivists like this want universal background checks and talk about things like “plenty of reasonable and responsible people own guns and that is their constitutional right.” But she didn’t request or advocate that only those who had been issued concealed handgun permits be allowed to carry (trusting in not only the background check, but approval by their CLEO). She wants no guns at all to be allowed, meaning that she doesn’t really trust approval granted through the background checks or concealed handgun permit.
Collectivists can’t have it both ways. Either the background check is trustworthy or all guns are a menace, meaning that not even LEOs should be carrying. On the other hand, perhaps she has inadvertently admitted what we all know. She doesn’t really care about universal background checks. That is only a vehicle to a national registry, the next step forward to national control.