The Voice of Insanity
–Joe Bakanovic, July 24, 2012
I understand that there are a lot of people who are put off by harsh language. I am constantly advised that I could reach more people if I would only “tone down my rhetoric.” They tell me that, if I would just use kinder words, more people would listen to me. Well, I’m not obtuse: I hear their voices and their concerns are not lost on me. Unfortunately, the fallacy in their reasoning doesn’t escape me, either. If I tone down my language, then I weaken the message. I have come to understand that I write to a very, very elite audience: those precious few who are actually looking for and are willing to accept the truth, and who recognize it when they find it. If I “tone down” my language, then I run the risk of getting lost in the noise of all the rest who are writing to tickle ears rather than to wake and inform others. So I know no other way but to stand and speak the truth as I understand it, and to defend it with the best evidence and most solid reasoning I can present. The rest I will just have to leave up to you and God: you’ll either read, understand and accept what I am trying to show you or you won’t. I can’t change that, but I understand that it doesn’t mean I have failed if I can’t change your mind. I fail only when I allow people who do not want to hear the truth to silence my voice. So, with this in mind, I would like to draw your attention to a story you probably will not see in the Left-wing media:
“After a hurricane, we talk about what kind of new levees we might build. After 911, we invented TSA. But after a mass murder, we’re not allowed to talk about gun control. Why? Because the NRA might not like it. Well, guess what? I don‘t give a damn about the NRA and I’m not afraid of them. By standing in the way of any sensible gun control, I think the NRA has blood on its hands. They ought to be called Murder Incorporated. How many more Columbines, how many more Virginia Techs, how many more Aurora, Colorados before we finally declare our independence from the NRA and stop worshipping the almighty gun?” Press snarled. “There’s no need for anybody outside the military to have an assault weapon.”
I included the word “insanity” in the title of this post for a reason, and that reason is clearly illustrated in the bolded words in the above statement. I know that it aggravates some people when I do this, but I do it for a reason: to force us all to understand that words mean things and to establish what the words we use mean. So, let’s look at what the word “insane” means:
Definition of INSANE
1: mentally disordered : exhibiting insanity
2: used by, typical of, or intended for insane persons <an insane asylum>
3: absurd <an insane scheme for making money>
4: extreme 1
Following the definition to “insanity:”
Definition of INSANITY
1: a deranged state of the mind usually occurring as a specific disorder (as schizophrenia)
2: such unsoundness of mind or lack of understanding as prevents one from having the mental capacity required by law to enter into a particular relationship, status, or transaction or as removes one from criminal or civil responsibility
3a : extreme folly or unreasonableness b : something utterly foolish or unreasonable
And to “absurd:”
Definition of ABSURD
1: ridiculously unreasonable, unsound, or incongruous <an absurd argument>
2: having no rational or orderly relationship to human life : meaningless <an absurd universe>; also : lacking order or value <an absurd existence>
Now, let’s look at what this man asserted in his statement:
Is the building of a levee equivalent to gun control? No! Had the leaders of New Orleans spent the money they had been given to maintain and improve the levees instead of on other political purposes, it is possible that the disaster in New Orleans may have been averted. If New Orleans builds bigger and better levees before the next hurricane, it is possible that another similar disaster could be avoided in the future. But it is not a certainty that these actions will prevent another flood, and anyone claiming that we can make it a certainty is not acknowledging reality. To be honest, man has no business convincing himself he can control the forces of nature, so the implication that levees will prevent floods can never be a certainty – it can only provide an increased level of protection. The same applies to gun control, only in the other direction: taking guns from the hands of law-abiding citizens only increases the likelihood of shootings in the future while decreasing the protection of innocent people. Just as man cannot control nature, man cannot control the will of other men. Those people bent on doing harm will always find a way to do so, and taking away the natural right of self-defense from those who do not seek to do harm is a harm in itself. The notion that it is not is unreasonable, absurd, insane.
We can take this same line of reasoning with the assertion that the TSA has made us safer. Since the TSA has been put in place, it has not caught one would-be bomber. However, it has committed numerous acts that, were it not a government sanctioned entity, would be legally considered to be sexual assault. What’s more, it has been repeatedly demonstrated that the TSA has major holes in its supposed protection as people have gotten past their screening with dummy bombs and even real weapons. And the cost for this ineffective protection has been a trampling of individual rights and liberties. So, the implication that the TSA has protected us and that gun control will do so as well is – on its face – absurd, and we have established that asserting the absurd as reality is – by definition – insanity.
I know that the illustration has been used to the point of losing its relevance, but the comparison of thinking guns cause crime to pencils causing spelling mistakes is dead-on accurate. A gun is nothing but a tool. It is the person wielding it that decides whether it will be used for good or evil. The idea that we can control what a person thinks and does by limiting the tools available to him is a denial of reality. In those societies where guns are illegal, the criminals still have guns. Refusing to acknowledge this as a fact is a denial of reality (i.e. insanity). Objective reality provides plenty of examples that demonstrate people will use bombs, knives or even baseball bats to kill. Had the Colorado shooter not had access to firearms, then, judging by the explosives he made, it is reasonable to assume he would have used explosives instead. In this case, it is likely that his use of firearms may have actually saved lives as an explosive device designed to produce shrapnel could have easily produced even more casualties. So it should be obvious to any rational person that the real problem is not firearms, it is the soul of the individual person.
Finally, the last statement:
“There’s no need for anybody outside the military to have an assault weapon.”
The second amendment was never intended to protect the right to go hunting or sports shooting: it was specifically intended to protect the Peoples’ right of last resort against the government. By arguing that people no longer need or deserve this right, this person is asserting that we should be subjugated to and totally dependent upon the government. Here again, history has repeatedly shown that actually acting on this line of reasoning inevitably leads to oppression and even atrocity. Furthermore, demanding that any individual should give up his or her natural right to self-defense is not only a violation of natural law, it is an out-right act of tyranny. In a free and self-governing society, any voice that demands freemen should willingly give up that liberty is – at least to me – insane.
And this is why I use the language I use: because it is accurate and true, and we need to face and accept its implications.