There was something Castro said that I considered worth making a post about. But when I read it, it seemed like a hook into something else entirely.
Castro implied that it was "paranoid" to think that the government might become a tyranny, and that is why we claim to need the guns. I thought that was worth responding to. For one thing, wasn't it him, or his brother, who doxxed people for doing nothing but exercising their right to their political views? If that isn't of a tyrannical mind in this own guy's mind, or his brother's mind, then what would it take to convince anyone? In the sense of not trusting, if this is what he means by "paranoid", then why should the public trust him or anyone else like him?
But then the article seemed to swerve into the current regulation regime, and how it might be improved.
That demonstrates a problem. I wanted to discuss why it is necessary to be on the lookout for potential tyrants, and why the public should be armed in order to be able to respond to one. Instead, I have to read through this trickery about current gun regulations. It is a bid to influence based upon a "hook". Quite tricky.
It seems that there are just too many "conservatives" who want to cave in to the left's demands. Why give into it? Just reject it. The law demonstrates bad faith anyway. If the law lets criminals get guns, then the whole idea wasn't to stop criminals, but to restrict gun ownership.
By that fact alone, you have ample reason not to trust the government. The government is always seeking to expand its authority. Liberty comes at the price of eternal vigilance, it has been said. If that gets you called bad names, then so be it. There are worse things.
Hitler banned gun ownership. Yet the Democrats like to call Trump a new Hitler. If they really believed their own rhetoric, then giving up their guns would be the last thing they would do. But since they are lying about Trump and about guns, then they are definitely not worthy of trust.
Just say no to these people.
No comments:
Post a Comment