One Purpose and One Purpose Only: To Destroy

A recurring argument in the land of unicorns and no guns is that a gun has only one purpose: to destroy.

It is also so with wrecking balls, explosives, and most of Saul Alinsky’s philosophy.

Destruction isn’t always a bad thing.  Threats need to be destroyed. A threat to destroy me needs to be countered by a threat to destroy the destroyer.

Evil exists and always will. Curtailing our ability to destroy its agents merely encourages the destruction of the good and the innocent by evil. Case and point… Sandy Hook.

God made man, but Sam Colt made him equal.

Loading Likes...
This entry was posted in Stop an Echo on by .

About philmon

Part mountain junkie, part decent amateur photographer, part survivalist, part not-so-decent amateur musician, part sysadmin. Husband, step-dad, grandpa, and music freak who digs mechanical clocks, barometers, and Gil Elvgren pinups. Studied Meteorolgy & Computer Science. And the U.S. Constitution.

One thought on “One Purpose and One Purpose Only: To Destroy

  1. Cylar

    Destruction isn’t always a bad thing. Threats need to be destroyed. A threat to destroy me needs to be countered by a threat to destroy the destroyer.

    Absolutely true, but try explaining this to a liberal. Their simplistic thinking leads them inexorably to guns = destruction = bad. Their worldview does not allow them to consider the possibility that real and evil people exist, people who cannot be reasoned with. That evil is not only real, but it can’t be bargained with or “understood,” only confronted and destroyed.

    My opinion for some time now that liberals’ love of gun control dovetails nicely with another aspect of their inherently flawed worldview – that people are naturally good and therefore perfectible. (Of course, the reality is that humanity is fallen and naturally corrupt.) In their minds, it’s just a matter of passing the right set of laws or getting the right leaders into power who will then enact that perfect combination of gun policy.

    What I can’t understand, though, is their refusal to consider the results of their experiments…or more precisely why they continue to insist that the United Kingdom and other countries with strict gun control are crime-free utopias, when easily-accessible data shows that this isn’t the case. Instead, we get stupid rejoinders like, “In Afghanistan, everyone’s packing an AK-47. How’s that working out for them?”

    This thinking also doesn’t account for cultural factors…and it also doesn’t explain why gun crime tends to be worse in areas of the US where strict gun controls are already in effect.

    They also show a curious lack of interest in enforcing the laws already on the books. The NRA and other gun-rights groups consistently argue for this, and for this they’re portrayed as being beholden to the interests of some nefarious group who simply does not care that little kids are being slaughtered by maniacs. (I won’t even get into the hypocrisy of that concern, coming as it does from people who generally support the slaughter of the unborn.)

Comments are closed.