December 31, 2006

I Think The Larger Point Has Been Proven

A long time ago I was playing in a band at a private party. One of the guests was a ormer vocalist of some local renown. We got him up to sing some old beahc tune & he stopped us cause he wanted to change the key. There was a slight argument as we stopped playing & he made an excited pitch for the change in key. At one point he exclaimed that he didn't want us to made a fool of which our band leader responded "you've already done that yourself". He put on a sheepish grin, apologized & we continued with the original plan (& he sounded fine btw).

In the coments to the much linked (by me at least) post The Root Of Homeland Is Home a commentor going by Jim O'Leary takes exception to us gun nuts in general:

"I am repeating myself. I am more frightened of you guys on this thread than I am of criminals. They aren't self righteous like you guys. Self defense, my ass. And my reading comprehension is just fine, thank you. That's why you all scare me.
I should have known better than to call you nutcases. It may piss one of you off and you are all armed and dangerous.
I have had guns pulled on me more than once. I was a child protective services worker for years. Ever try to take away kids from somebody? I don't want any guns around at all at a time like that. The ones the parents have are quite enough. Peace!"
(emphasis mine)

Mr. O'Leary misses the point - it should be dangerous for anyone to take away someone's kids. I'll readily admit there are some situations where a person or persons are causing harm to their kids & they should be taken away but would any of us really feel better where any child could be removed from his/her parents with little danger? & I'll also readily admit that I am very distrustful of the various government agencies who claim to operate in the interests of children. I simply cannot fathom how the same group of folks who put together the uber-effecient DMV know what's best for anyone's kid. There are some instances when it's obvious (where actual physical or sexual abuse or mental cruelty is involved) that a kid should be seperated from his/her parents for the kid's own good but the government has done many questionable things in that particular field. Enough so that I'm skeptical of the ratio of harm-to-good from most social service agencies.

But as an agent of the state Mr. O'Leary objects to us being well armed because it made his job (taking away kids from their parents) more difficult.

In the post Mars, Bringer Of War I made this statement:

"An armed individual can resist (& sometimes effectively) the will of the collective. That's it. That's it in its entirety. Sounds too simple to be believed doesn’t it? But that's why we're arguing that 17 round tube fed .22 caliber rifles shouldn't be outlawed as "assault weapons" in some states. That's the root of the conflict; some folks want the collective to brandish the power & see an armed individual as a danger to that level of control."

I doubt he'd comprehend or agree with it but I think Mr. O'Leary has unintentionally proven my point.

Posted by Publicola at December 31, 2006 09:38 PM | TrackBack

You got it. Nailed!

Posted by: donmeaker at January 13, 2007 02:00 PM