Evolution and Gun Control

Yes, you read that correctly. I am going to link gun control to evolution to PROVE that the Left really doesn’t understand their own notion of evolution (Peter, this one’s for you :-) )

In the comment section of another thread, RNL reader, Peter Chung, told me that “my kind” are destined to become extinct because we reject his idea of the model society.  OK, let’s look at what he implies is the model society to see whether or not it conforms to the secular humanist notion of evolution (best defined as Darwinism, not evolution).

First, Peter thinks the model society must be “tolerant.”  Well, what does he mean by tolerant?  That’s easy.  I’ll explain in liberalese (i.e. pictures):

76753_10151305111207376_1130025444_n

525623_10151177962620896_1220840875_n

Now, if “evolution” operates by random selection and the survival of the fittest, then how is it the Liberal/Progressives think it is “evolution” to circumvent that very process?  After all, if the people with guns are better able to force their will on people, therefore, better able to reproduce (never mind that this can include rape), then “evolution” would suggest that THEY are “the fittest” and, therefore, should be the ones to survive.  After all, “evolution” assumes that humans are just animals, so “survival” doesn’t really amount to anything more than reproduction.  So it is actually a failure of the THEORY of Darwinism to say that we should NOT be armed.  After all, if armed people are better able to survive, then we should all be armed.  This is actually simple logic based on the Left’s notion of Darwinism.

But let’s assume that we actually CAN consciously direct our own evolution (the foundational assumption upon which ALL of Leftist ideology is actually based — hence the term “progress”).  If we can learn from history to direct the evolution of mankind, then we should be looking to the American founders as the model of what society should be.  After all, they were the ones who looked to history to design a system in which the individual’s rights and liberties were protected from the ‘non-evolving’ designs of tyranny — in all its many forms.  America’s founders “evolved” human government.  So why have “Progressives” been trying to undo what the founders did?  Wouldn’t that be “devolution?”  And why do they attack anyone who questions them or their ideas?  Don’t we “evolve” through questioning everything so we can learn enough to make informed, rational decisions? I actually have an answer to this question.  Once again, I’ll explain in “liberalese:”

375845_453166698048223_10607740_n

Now, how do we connect this to gun control?  Well, the founders — those men who “evolved” human government to the highest state it has ever known and is ever likely to know — said that the people should be armed so that they can resist tyranny WHEN it rears its ugly, regressive head again:

480139_10151475727570432_607439029_n

306089_473760462662794_615275960_n

But Progressives have told us that only the government should own weapons.  They apparently have forgotten history and, therefore, they are regressing and we should eliminate their seed from our gene pool — for the betterment of the self-directed evolution of society (we are keeping to the liberal/progressive notion of Darwinistic evolution, remember?).  Or, it means the Left believes this is the more “evolved” form of human government:

294813_194123270657306_1388250533_n

So, we are left with a choice.  Is this “evolution” as Peter and his fellow collectivists would have you believe:

262679_10151199002646446_485646226_n

60935_431625246907106_148452722_n

196055_129541177195765_681547037_n

Or is THIS:

311651_4355218234405_1647721931_n

18929_223717331096080_272387523_n

154599_536976019646646_669823952_n

 

About these ads

22 thoughts on “Evolution and Gun Control

  1. Have you ever been out of this country? Do you know the gun control policies in places outside of the United States? We shouldn’t be looking to the founding fathers for advice because while there may be some words of wisdom, most of their critiques are certainly outdated and are not applicable to modern society. We SHOULD be looking at other places around the world that have successfully implemented gun control, because while there are many examples of countries that have not (like Mexico) there are several that have. I do not think that the United States will ever make it to the level of safety or control that the EU upholds because Americans will NEVER give up their right to own guns. Gun control does NOT mean another prohibition, it does not mean that we’re going to outlaw guns. Gun control means that we are going to make the process to buy a gun more intensive. It means that if you deserve to have a gun, you most certainly can, and if you do not then you can’t legally buy one. I understand people want to protect themselves but I think only handguns should be allowed. No one needs a more powerful gun. There is no reason. If you are going hunting then you should go to a hunting ground, pick up your gun there and return it when you’re done.

    As for the survival of the fittest argument, people with guns are obviously not the most fit. I live in New York City, have been to 25 countries (including Bulgaria and Turkey alone as a female) and don’t own a gun. I’m doing just fine. I don’t plan on dying anytime soon.

    • “Such a restrictive policy has made its mark. Indeed, no European country has more than 30% of its population possessing guns. Compared to 88% for the United States, this number looks quite insignificant. In total, the number of guns held by civilians in the US seems to be disproportionate (270,000,000) compared to the European countries, where French civilians hold only 19,000,000 guns. The UK and Norway has even a smaller result with respectively an approximate 4,000,000 and 1,300,000 guns held by civilians. These two countries have an impressively low rate of gun deaths: only 107 deaths in 2009 in Norway and 138 in the UK for the same year. Even France, the most “armed” country of Europe, had a total number of deaths by guns for 2009 under 2,000 persons. In the United States during the same period, this number was five times higher, with almost 10,000 deaths a year.”

      http://transatlantic-magazine.com/gun-control-europe-vs-out-of-control-united-states/

    • Yes, I most certainly HAVE been outside the US (I was a Marine for 9 years). I HAVE seen how gun control works in other nations. That is why I see the ETERNAL wisdom in the founders words. It has NOT been made obsolete: we have just deceived ourselves into believing that.

      You see, the reason the US SHOULDN’T give up their right to keep their weapons is in the founding. Had the founders believed as you do, we would still have kings and slavery in this nation — and Europe.

      And as for my Darwin illustration: you missed the point. I would suggest you read Darwin. The illustration holds.

      • I have read Darwin. I don’t agree with you. You didn’t even respond to my entire point, which is that gun control does not mean taking guns away, it means making it more difficult to get one if you are not fit to own one.

        • US ofK,

          If you have read Darwin, then you should know he was wrong. Modern science has confirmed that his theories are an impossibility. Still, his theories have been elevated to a level of religion and — in that sense — you may disagree, but I am not wrong. ;-)

          As for your notions of gun control: I heard you. I simply reject your idea because — at its core — you are just throwing YOUR ideas for how to govern the rights of others. By whatever name YOU have given it, it is STILL TYRANNY!

          ANY time you seek to tell me what limits should be placed on MY rights, that is tyranny — plain and simple.

          • Oh Joe, you really seem like a smart enough guy, but if what I’m saying is tyranny, then what you are saying is treason. If you dislike the government telling you what to do on reasonable issues like gun control, something that can harm people if abused, then your only options are discovering a remote island or time travel. It sounds like you would have been happier born a cave man – pre-cities, pre-agriculture. Society and the government control every person on this earth’s rights. You don’t have the right to murder someone. You know why? The government says so. If the government abused it’s power and a revolution occurred, you would have the right to murder anyone you wanted without punishment until order was once again established and there was someone else to take away your “right” and inflict punishment.

            • USofK,

              Treason? Do you know what the definition of treason is? It doesn’t appear that you do. At best, what I am saying would be subversion (not the same as treason), but it isn’t.

              Gun control is not a “reasonable” issue — it is a clear violation of both the constitution and natural law. That makes YOUR assertions subversive. And your straw man argument for controlling things that harm people is absurd — unless you are now advocating that we ban cars — or even breathing for that matter (after all, life causes death, you know).

              Society and the government control every person on this earth’s rights.

              BINGO! Thank you little miss Hobbes!

              Folks, I give you the tyrant, USofK. The sad part is, she doesn’t even realize why she’s a tyrant: she has been so indoctrinated that she actually thins SHE is the reasonable one here.

              Sad :-(

              USofK,

              If govt. gives you and controls your rights, then you have no rights. If only you understood that. But then, it’s now clear that you neither understand rights nor liberty.

        • By “not fit to own one” are you talking about those of us that are considered by our ‘Homeland Security’ to be domestic terrorists (Veterans and T.E.A Party activists. But not those pesky OWS Anarchists.} You see it’s always the tyrants that choose the fitting.

        • “You didn’t even respond to my entire point, which is that gun control does not mean taking guns away, it means making it more difficult to get one if you are not fit to own one.”

          A colossally dis-proven false syllogism. The restrictions you speak of only apply to law abiding citizens. This tactic has never kept any gun out of the hands of the criminal mind.

          You, like our current administration, would continue to arm the criminal mind, and keep deterrence out of the reach of law abiding citizens. (ex: a top ATF official’s handgun was found at a crime scene in Mexico … how do you think it got there?)

          What does that make you, and yours, K?

  2. “Have you ever been out of this country? ” Yes, I have.

    “Do you know the gun control policies in places outside of the United States?” Some of them.

    “We shouldn’t be looking to the founding fathers for advice because while there may be some words of wisdom, most of their critiques are certainly outdated and are not applicable to modern society.” What is outdated and not applicable about this?: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    “We SHOULD be looking at other places around the world that have successfully implemented gun control, because while there are many examples of countries that have not (like Mexico)” You’re kidding me, right? In 1972 the Federal Law of Firearms and Explosives came into force and gave the federal government complete jurisdiction and control to the legal proliferation of firearms in the country; at the same time, heavily limiting and restricting the legal access to firearms by civilians. Who’s sorry now?

    “I do not think that the United States will ever make it to the level of safety or control that the EU upholds” Gosh, I guess someone needs to talk to the relatives of that Anders Breivik fella.

    “Gun control does NOT mean another prohibition, it does not mean that we’re going to outlaw guns.” So what DOES it mean, exactly? The founders were pretty clear in their language. Oh, wait! You answered my question! How very remiss of me! “Gun control means that we are going to make the process to buy a gun more intensive. It means that if you deserve to have a gun, you most certainly can, and if you do not then you can’t legally buy one.” So then, my sweet, who decides if an individual is deserving?

    “I think only handguns should be allowed. No one needs a more powerful gun.” By your logic, it is then fine if I own a steak knife to cut with, but a butcher knife os over-the-top. While one may appear more intimidating, the true intimidation resides in the individual holding said knife, gun, baseball bat, &c.

    “If you are going hunting then you should go to a hunting ground, pick up your gun there and return it when you’re done.” If there is a food shortage, two words: Good luck.

    “As for the survival of the fittest argument, people with guns are obviously not the most fit.” I beg to differ. I’d trust my life to any of the RNL boys………especially if they were walking in front of me ;)

    • NCO77,

      LOL, I hear ya. I think the problem is that too many people mix up “tolerance” with “acceptance.” Just because I am tolerant of abhorrant behavior does NOT mean I have to accept it — but the abhorrent seem to think I do and that, if I do not “accept” them, then I am “intolerant.”

      Heck, the fact that they are allowed to live around this old Marine PROVES my tolerance ;-)

      (that’s a joke, lefties — I am NOT advocating that you should be killed for the way you are — that’s ya’ll’s position toward me).

  3. Pingback: The Genius of Thomas Sowell | The Rio Norte Line

  4. The perfect example of this for me was when the windbag ESPN talker, Colin Cowheard was talking about Michael Vick’s return to the NFL a few years ago. He repeated over and over that Vick wouldn’t be accepted in a place like St Louis or Pittsburg or Green Bay because people in those areas just weren’t tolerant. He said Vick would have to go to NY or Philly or Washington, where people are more open minded and more tolerant. Sub the word: People in NY, Philly and Washington are more stupid, and you have a corrected statement.

  5. Jeramiah 17:9 the heart of man is desperately wicked and who can no it : this is the potential of every human being ….until Jesus comes back again to set up his kingdom …. Tyrants have proven this verse over and over again. Absolute power …. They feel they answer to no one and can kill at willl

    • Bmt,

      Very true, but then, we must remember that many of those tyrants truly believe in their hearts that they are doing the right thing: that they are acting for the best of mankind. I’m convinced of this. I’m equally convinced that this is how they convince themselves that mass murder is a “good” thing: because they are convinced it serves a “greater” good.

    • The Progressives believe the “heart” of man is evil and wicked too….that is one of their justificatioons for demanding the right to control the rest of us…..We are evil and have to have the “entightened ones” ( our intellectual superiors ….self-defined by them as them) control us.

      There is Good alongside evil……many people have Good in their hearts and act accordingly…..those of us who “live” here in our hearts need to unite and support each other….and fight the evil. Anything else is just supporting the decline.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s