In the wake of
the Sandy Hook tragedy, there’s been a lot of talk about guns. Or rather,
there’s been a lot of shouting about guns. Both sides seem unable to see how
anyone could believe differently, and in general, both act from good motives. On the one side,
you have the Right, who are prepared to fight tooth and nail against increased
gun control. On the other, the Left is pushing for a ban onassault rifles.
I recently
listened to a particularly heated discussion—I should say knock-down, drag-out fight—on the
subject between ultra-liberal Piers Morgan and ultra-conservative Ben Shapiro.
First, kudos to Morgan for having the guts to have Shapiro on there, because
Shapiro obviously came with an ax to grind (or a rifle to prime). Shapiro got
off to a quick start by accusing Morgan of “standing on the graves of the Sandy
Hook victims” to advance his political agenda. He proceeded to not pull any
punches.
Ultimately, the
shouting match narrowed itself down to one point of contention that I think
summarizes the problem.
Just say that one more time, buddy... |
Shapiro: “The basis for
the Second Amendment is not really about self-defense and it’s not about
hunting; it is about resistance to government tyranny. That’s what the Founders
said, and that’s what the Right believes in this country.”
Morgan: “Which tyranny
are you fearing, yourself?”
S: “I fear the
possibility of a tyranny rising in this country in the next fifty to a hundred
years. Let me tell you something, Piers. The fact that my grandparents and
great-grandparents in Europe didn’t fear that is why they are now ashes.”
And later:
M: …“You believe
that your own government is going to turn on you in a way that you require an
AR15 to challenge them—”
Bring it, dude. |
M: “So, the
reason we cannot remove AR15 assault weapons is because [of] the threat of your
own government turning on you in a tyrannical way.”
I find this an
example of a very deep-set difference between conservatives and liberals. Since
(not to stereotype, but here it is), the Left is generally more inclined to
atheism, it is also more inclined to Darwinism. Darwinism is, by very
definition, an enemy to democracy. If some of us are more highly evolved, we
more intelligent ones have every right to rule the ignorant masses. (Note: “we”
is always used; “them” turns up seldom in Darwinist’s speech, since everybody likes to think we're the "fittest"). This means that
the aristocrats of Britain and the Aryans of Germany could easily claim
evolutionary superiority; the weak are drains on the community, so they must be
annihilated.
I don’t mean to
say that Piers Morgan, or most modern liberals, actively believe this. Or maybe
I do. After all, it’s the logical end of the evolutionary argument. If they’d
be intellectually honest with themselves, they’d realize this. Some, like good ol' Nietzsche (who actually said what he meant), do. Still, liberalism tends to lean
this way, into arrogant intellectual snobbery. The enemy isn’t only wrong—they’re
stupid. (Unless they’re one of the favored weak minorities). This underpinning to the idea of evolution
causes modern man to look down on his ancestors as unenlightened, old-fashioned,
and rustic.
Conservatives
tend to ally themselves with Christian ideals. Christianity teaches that all
men are equal before God, and that men now are no more infallible or
intelligent than men a thousand years ago. We believe in original sin, and thus
in equality. Thus, we tend to distrust other human beings, even the very
intelligent ones, because we know that sin lurks in every heart. We also believe that it is the task of the strong to protect the weak, and that through weakness comes wisdom (see one Jesus of Nazareth.)
Longish
No comments:
Post a Comment
WARNING: Blogger sometimes eats comments - copy before you post.