Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Reservoir Sheepdogs
“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” — Robert A. Heinlein
Concealed carry is booming in the United States. Carry permits are being issued in record numbers across the country and guns sales are booming once again. Yes, carrying a gun is a civil right, but it’s one that comes with the responsibility that you will add to the security of our society. One of the things you quickly learn when you carry a gun is that you give up your “right” to be angry: You do not escalate an argument, and you take every precaution to not be in places where you might need your gun. Those of us who carry concealed understand that our role in society is to be neither predator nor prey, but to watch over the flock and keep ourselves and our loved ones safe.
This lesson of self-restraint and civic responsibility is completely lost on the anti gun-rights crowd. To them, there is no such thing as self-restraint while carrying a gun, because there is no such thing as self-restraint. People who tend to shoot off their mouths are the same ones who shoot off guns. Renowned self-defense expert Marc MacYoung (a man who has experience on both sides of the criminal justice system), recently said, “It’s been my experience that most of those who claim to be morally opposed to physical violence are, in fact, enamored of emotional and verbal violence. Their position isn’t a moral one. It’s better explained as they do not want physical repercussions for their non-physical violence.” His words ring true. It’s not violence that the anti-gunners fear, they fear having to pay for the consequences of their actions.
Quentin Tarantino embodied this concept this week when he spoke out in favor of the “Black Lives Matter” and against the police officers who are risking their lives every day to keep us safe. Rather than accept the simple fact that his words did not exist in a vacuum, he whined to MSNBC’s Chris Hayes that he was “under the impression I was an American and that I had First Amendment rights and there was no problem with me going to an anti-police brutality protest and speaking my mind.”
He’s right. There is no problem with him going to an “anti-police” rally and speaking his mind. However, Mr. Tarantino was expecting to live in the consequence-free world of “safe speech” zones and was shocked, shocked that people might object to his hateful words against law enforcement officers.
But that’s not the truth. The truth is, Mr. Tarantino wants to live free from the after-effects of his speech, and prefers to be ruled by the tyranny of “diversity” and tolerance.
But I’m trying, Mr. Tarantino. I’m trying real hard to be the shepherd.
Published in Culture, Entertainment, Guns
For those of you who didn’t watch the movie, that last line is a “Pulp Fiction” reference (NSFW (language) link).
A quibble: it’s a natural right, not a civil one, derivative of one’s right to life and one’s obligation to defend it and those of others.
Regarding the actual point of your post: spot on.
Eric Hines
Yeah, I agree, but I wanted to make a connection with civic responsibilities and civil rights.
Kevin- This is slightly tangential but refers to a point you made; ‘It’s not violence that the anti-gunners fear, they fear having to pay for the consequences of their actions.’
Saw a short video last week, possibly outside some club, where two guys are sort of teeing up and one guy is upbraiding the other for getting in his face. The one being upbraided says something like ‘what are you talking about’, the first says points out that the guy walked up to him and got in his business so the upbraided decides to tell the guy to ‘f-off and’ the first guy doesn’t hesitate and delivers a straight blow to his jaw and puts him down.
The attitude of the stand off was simple, the upbraided fellow was acting out and actually smiling thinking he could say whatever he wanted to and get away with it, which changed very suddenly. Lets just say there were ‘consequences’ for being a jerk, and I’m pretty sure the ‘jerk’ also now feels ‘violated’ because he was just ‘using his free speech’, not that words have any meaning anymore.
I am not advocating violence but it appears that in places like Chicago the words and rhetoric of the liberal politicians against guns and violence must ring VERY hollow to all those stuck in the neighborhood war zones. And a good liberal, unless you are Bill Ayers, is all about using words against real world problems.
It need to be said that this can go too far in the other direction. Violence in response to being “disrespected” is one of the major problems in the black community.
You also become a model driver; getting stopped requires a specific set of actions and disclosures regarding your gun, which might just be in your shoulder holster- a delicate situation when a police officer approaches your window.
Great post!
“Those of us who carry concealed understand that our role in society is to be neither predator nor prey, but to watch over the flock and keep ourselves and our loved ones safe.”
I disagree with part of this sentence. My role is to protect myself and loved ones. The rest of the flock has the same right to carry as I do. If they choose not to, don’t expect me to jump in harms way to protect them. Me and my loved ones will be leaving the area as quick as we can.
Excellent post, thank you.