Great reply?

Every once in a while I visit a website called Shortnews.com. It's a place where people try their best to post news that they are simultaneously required to gather from a source, but in no way plagiarize the source. So it's news from real news sites, repeated by a bunch of chumps, and everyone else gets to comment on it. Hilarity ensues.

99% of the people on this website are hardcore liberals. They come from all over the world, lots of British, some Germans, many south Americans, etc. Needless to say, my opinion is often contentious.

So I went on today and there was an article titled “Arizona Goes Back to the Wild Wild West” http://shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=79448

Of course, being the liberals they are, this wasn’t some performance, or some spike in crime, or change in police style. Nope. It’s an article about concealed guns being allowed in bars.

So there of course was comment after comment of these liberal assholes talking about how they were ashamed to be human, ashamed of America, disgusted by the NRA blah blah blah because the Second Amendment was being supported. Of course most other nations have outright banned gun ownership, so a moderate from England or Australia would sound like an anti-gun psycho in America, but these people aren’t even moderates in their own country.

This was my response:


I am a man who believes if something is truly right, its status as right or wrong should not hinge on the failures of men. That if one truly believes in something, they may die for that belief, without compromise, and they would have lived a good and honorable life. After all, every human will die. This isn't important. How a person lives is what matters.


I know that for a rational and reasonable society to exist, every individual needs to have the right to personal property, and the right to protect themselves. This is fundamentally critical. For if we cannot value the rights of others to keep themselves, then we are essentially ascribing them to be slaves of society.

Society is merely a collection of individuals. As soon as you try to put some "value" of a "people" over an individual, the "people" are no longer free.

I believe it is a great injustice when a majority (or a minority in power) forces its will upon individuals in manners that only apply to personal livelihood.

This transcends "parties" or whatever people try to lump together in politics. This is a fundamental respect of the individual's right to exist by their standards, so long as they do not harm others.

Examples of this are all over in politics, and I find the political system to be a joke because of this. For how can you support one binding, and not another?

Some examples would be:

A woman's right to control her body, to have an abortion if she desires.

A human's right to get high, get drunk, kill themselves, have assisted suicide, anything unhealthy but entirely personal.

An adult's right to have a relationship with another consenting adult, or multitudes of consenting adults, and to engage in their relationship(s) in any manner they agree upon.

And another example would be for a person to be able to carry a gun.

I see these as fundamental rights. Whether or not a woman kills her children or leaves them in dumpsters is not a case against abortion. Whether or not a man gets drunk and kills another man, or ODs, or has their suicide taped and released are not arguments against a person's right to be healthy or unhealthy.

Whether or not a gay man will go to hell, or if a polygamist will take all the hot chicks in town are not arguments against adult relationships.

Taking one thing (an individual's right to chose their path in life) then adding on a criminal act (where a person may hurt someone else, or show disregard for life and put others or even their property in danger) are completely separate issues.

Either we are free to act on our own accord, as free humans we should be, or we are slaves to opinion and emotion. There is a rational boundary, if you hurt another person through reckless or malicious behavior, if you cause damage, these are overt acts that ARE explicitly matters for society. The boundaries are easy to draw, if you get drunk or high, then you cannot drive. If you choose to have a child, then you may not harm them, if you want to have sex with multiple partners, you can't be giving them the clap on purpose. And should you choose to be ask ever so nicely to be judged by a sheriff in your county, to be permitted by the United States Government to be able to simply carry a weapon which is your personal right to do so, then you may not just start shooting things or people.

Taking responsibility from the individual, is literally removing their rights as well. With rights come responsibilities, and you cannot have it both ways. You cannot tell someone they are simultaneously responsible and unable to act. Every law that is passed taking responsibilities from people, and giving them to the police, and the courts, is a little bit less freedom.

It is a very clear cut philosophy. Freedom or slavery. But you people somehow manage to pick and choose which laws you want enforced to suit your life, your mind, your circumstance. And it is this attitude, that the majority of humans possess, that is the ultimate failing of humanity. You want freedom, by your personal opinionated standard, and when enough opinions come together, no one is free.