Ammo For Sale

« « Binary | Home | Shooty Goodness Commencing » »

Same planet, different worlds

This quote of the day from Joe and subsequent links got me to thinking. Go read and come back. There simply cannot be peace between our people and it’s entirely because of different mentalities, world views and ways of thinking. And that quote is one example of this substantial difference in thinking and cognition.

The other difference I find in dealing with folks with whom I mostly disagree politically is the concept of need. Why do you need a 50 caliber? Why do you need a car that gets to 60 in under 5 seconds and gets shitty gas mileage? Why do you need this or that? And my response is always the same: What’s need got to do with it?

And this throws them for a loop. Literally. They feel the need to justify their desires, wants, views and goals so that they’re palatable to other people. They expect you to do the same. I have no such predilection toward that. I do things because I want to. And when I explain to them that my supposed need has fuck all to do with anything, I can literally watch their eyes glaze over in what I presume is disbelief. I think it’s hard on them to be told that they don’t have a say. And I’m not justifying any thing to them.

ETA: And I think their amazement comes from being told their whole life that feelings matter and are the most important things on earth. Which is, mostly, patently false. So being told your feelings don’t actually matter and you don’t get a say can be a hard kick in the reality.

55 Responses to “Same planet, different worlds”

  1. sol vason Says:

    There was a debate. Should we guarantee that everyone will get what they need or what they want?

    Everyone agreed it was impossible to give everybody everything they wanted. Indeed, they knew they could not give everyone everything they needed.

    “But if we create a government that gives everyone everything they need — doesn’t that mean the government have the right to take it all away? After all the Natural Law says, “Whatever you give a person you may take back”.

    “For example if we vote a man into office we have the right to remove him. Does not the Pope have the right to take away the Emperor’s crown because only the pope can place the crown on the Emperor’s head?”

    Everyone agreed they did not want the government to give the people the things they needed only to take them back when people displeased an evil President — especially if the people could make these things themselves or grow them themselves. They decided if someone made something or grew it then no one had the right to take it away.

    Everyone of them agreed that a person should have the right to defend his/her rights and the things he/she made or grew and, therefore, he/she needed the right to have a gun. But can one man/women fight bandits or an evil President alone? “Then give them the right to form groups that can defend their rights against an evil government”, they decided. And they decided to call these groups “militia”.

    Everyone agreed that everyone should be able to get the things they needed and wanted. But how to say this elegantly? They decided to call it “The Pursuit of Happiness”. And they decided that everybody had a right to a gun so that they could protect their pursuit of happiness from evil.

    They also decided it was a very bad idea to have a standing army. After all, wasn’t this why they fled from Europe to make a new life in the wilderness that was America?

    But today America is being rebuilt in the image of the hell holes our ancestors fled. And the Progressives call this Progress.

    Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

  2. f3ba Says:

    Gotta cousin who got her Sociology Doctorate from UCLA. She asked me this “need” question once.

    Once.

    I laughed at her. And laughed. And laughed. And LAUGHED.

    Sure, after 30 seconds of uproarious side-splitting cackling it became fake laughter, but I didn’t let up, and I never broke eye contact.

    She’s smart enough that she’s never tried that tact again.

  3. DirtCrashr Says:

    They think YOU need to have their permission – for everything generally speaking – and “real permission” must/essentially comes from The State.
    Don’t forget the part about The Greatest Need, the Determining Need, and the State that takes it for distribution: “From each according to their ability, to each according to their NEED.”
    You have an ability – call it facility with firearms (at least it’s not a crippling disability as it is for them) or even Liberty, and that must be re-distributed…

  4. malclave Says:

    Should people have to justify their “need” to have the latest cell phone with all the bells and whistles (or any cell phone at all) before they’re allowed to buy one?

    How about cable or satellite TV? Do they really need a DVR? And c’mon, does everybody really need an automobile at all, especially if they live in an urban area with public transit?

  5. ray Says:

    My normal response to the “need” question is, Why do you need to be evil and stupid?” Suitably reframed, the conversation can proceed.