When one says of another, 'you can't do that, it offends me' we say things like there is no right to be offended. The lunacy is all too obvious in such cases.But when it's as in this case, it is perception which is superior. It gets worse, it isn't only the general perception held by the public (guns be bad) but the specific perception of gun owners who in cases like this turn on their own kind. It is a special damnation of the *perceived* violation. Look, we either have rights or we don't. It truly is yes/no, black/white. There are no gradations of grey. If and when the politicians seek policy/regulation/statute to ban firearms then that can be dealt with. But to label guys racking a load in Wal-Mart as some kind of extremist is to betray your brethren and to weaken your cause. It is wholly presumptuous to proactively seek retribution on them who are merely perceived as violating your sensibilities.
Correction: "...NOT to be offended."
Post a Comment