bookmark_borderRespecting people’s fundamental rights is not “weak”

 
 
 
 
 
View this post on Instagram
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A post shared by Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy)

“A gunman from a state with weak gun laws”

As a commenter on the post wrote, “‘Weak gun laws’ you mean states that don’t infringe on the 2nd amendment.”

Yup. States that actually – gasp! – respect people’s fundamental rights. Can’t have that, apparently.

News flash, Governor Hochul: Respecting people’s fundamental rights is not “weak.”

It’s a basic moral obligation.

It’s basic human decency.

There’s nothing “strong” about punishing innocent people for the actions of others.

There’s nothing “strong” about violating people’s fundamental rights.

How about, when a person does something bad, we actually blame the person, rather than blaming the government for not violating the rights of all people in an attempt to prevent a person from doing something bad?

Just a thought.

bookmark_border“Hate has no home here”

 
 
 
 
 
View this post on Instagram
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A post shared by Glory Glory (@oldgloryglory)

Bingo!

I would also add, hate for people who have trouble making friends, people who are bullied, people who don’t fit in, people who think for themselves, people who hold minority views, people who resist authority, people who decline medical interventions, and people who are different from the norm in any way.

bookmark_border“To ban guns because the criminals use them…”

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Mary J. Ruwart, Ph.D. (@maryjruwart)

No one’s rights or liberties should ever, ever depend on the conduct of other people.

No one should ever have their rights or liberties taken away because of the actions of others.

To do so is to punish one person for the actions of another. And punishing people for the actions of others is never, ever okay.

bookmark_border“No kings in America…”

No kings in America…

But yes to mandatory medical procedures.

Yes to society collectively making decisions about which risks people should be allowed to take, rather than people making decisions about risk for themselves.

No kings in America…

But yes to viciously tearing down statues of those who fought for the losing side of a war.

Yes to obliterating all representation of people who are different from the norm, in our public spaces, in our society, in art and culture.

No kings in America…

But yes to the criminalization of political dissent.

Yes to demanding unquestioning, unthinking submission.

Yes to mindless compliance with social norms.

Yes to morally condemning the entire concept of rebellion, of revolution, of resistance to authority.

Yes to using the terms “insurrectionist” and “traitor” as pejoratives, as if the concept of resisting authority is so self-evidently shameful and bad that it ought to be used as an insult.

No kings in America…

But yes to tyranny, authoritarianism, and totalitarianism.

That is the message of the “No Kings Day” protests.

bookmark_border“Heroes of what, exactly?”

“Heroes of what, exactly?”

This is a comment that I saw on a post with a cool graphic depicting Confederate soldiers of various ranks and wearing various uniforms, with the caption “our heroes.”

This comment is yet another example of the bigotry, intolerance, and idiocy of “woke” ideology.

“Heroes of what, exactly?”

My first thought in response to this comment is… what does that even mean? I wasn’t aware that a person needed to be a hero of something in order to be a hero. I wasn’t aware that the term “heroes” required such a specifier in order to make sense. What exactly does it mean to be a hero of something?

It’s probably pointless of me to even ask these questions, because this comment isn’t really an attempt to make a logical and reasoned argument, but rather a mindless act of aggression for the sake of aggression. It’s an attempt to attack, to dominate, to question for the sake of questioning. Seemingly, this commenter thinks that he’s making an incisive and salient point, that being a mean bully somehow demonstrates his cleverness, that failing to answer the question to his satisfaction (or at all) somehow makes Confederate supporters look foolish and stupid. He seems to be saying “gotcha!”… as if our inability to specify what Confederate soldiers are heroes of, somehow proves wrong our assertion that they are heroes.

In reality, it’s the commenter himself who looks foolish and stupid.

In reality, all that is demonstrated by this thoughtless and incoherent comment is the fact that the commenter is a mean and aggressive bully.

We consider Confederate soldiers to be our heroes, and we have every right to do so. People don’t need to be heroes of anything in order to be heroes.

An additional observation that demonstrates the bigotry, intolerance, and idiocy of “woke” ideology: I left a comment on the original post expressing agreement and stating, “their lives mattered.” Several people chose to react to my comment with the “laughing face” emoji. The fact that every person’s life matters should be so obvious that it shouldn’t even need to be stated. Yet several people chose to express the opinion, not only that the lives of others don’t matter, but that the very idea that the lives of others might matter, is laughable. In other words, to these people, the possibility that people who are different from them might actually have value, is considered ridiculous.

What kind of person laughs at the idea that other people’s lives mattered? What kind of person ridicules the possibility that those who are different from them might actually have value? An intolerant bully and bigot with no mind and no soul.

In conclusion, Confederate soldiers are heroes, and their lives mattered. Period. Full stop. End of story.

bookmark_border“Conservatives are arming teenagers”

Um, yes. And this is bad, how?

Conservatives support – gasp! – actually respecting teenagers’ fundamental rights.

Again, how exactly is this bad?

Contrary to what “March For Our Lives” seems to be implying, it actually is fine for people’s fundamental rights to be respected. In fact, it’s the only thing that is.

Plus, this might be nitpicky, but it doesn’t really make sense to capitalize, and thereby place emphasis on, the words “DECADES-OLD.” The age of a law has nothing to do with whether it is good or bad. A law that violates people’s rights existed for decades. And? How exactly does that make it bad for said law to be overturned?

The only bad thing about this situation is the fact that a law which violates people’s rights existed for as long as it did.

Allowing people to actually have their fundamental rights respected is not only fine; it’s a basic moral obligation.

bookmark_borderHaving a different opinion does not make someone “delusional” or “out of touch with reality”

“Just came to the comments section to see whether MAGA is as delusional and out of touch with reality as ever before. I was not disappointed.”

Yes, because for people to have different viewpoints, ideas, and perspectives than you, is totally the same thing as being delusional and out of touch with reality. 

Obviously, your own personal viewpoint is the sole barometer of objective truth.

Thanks for this bigoted, intolerant, and mindless comment.

Well done!

Not.