Reading Time: 3 minutes
You know, whenever acts of mass violence occur, such as the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School last December or the stabbings today at Lone Star Community College in Houston, TX, it has become predictable for liberals to line up in front of the cameras and offer unsolicited commentary in the form of “We must…” statements, as if to piously suggest a genuine concern over the moral state of our nation subsequent to such acts.
Ever notice that?
As of this posting, it is still relatively early in the investigation of the incident today at Lone Star Community College, so, to my knowledge, none of the usual liberal mouthpieces have come forward as yet (e.g. President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, Jesse Jackson, et al.), but, just sit back and wait a while. Once the dust settles a bit, these “We must…” statements will commence in full force. Notwithstanding their incessant crocodile tears, without fail the “We must…” clarion call of liberals is never in the context of genuine, morality-based behavior change, but behavior change by force or coercion of law, which is not behavior change at all, but compliance.
In other words, the “We” in “We must…” always implies the State, not you or me, as the solution in the form of an ever-increasing number of laws to which we must submit. Laws which are purposely designed to further restrict individual freedoms under the guise of a collectivist notion that only the Government can protect us from ourselves. This is always the case.
You see, despite their best efforts to be viewed as sincere and “caring” (because feelings, not logic or critical thought, are what’s most important to them), liberals are never truly concerned with what is moral, only with what is permissible. But, in defining what one is permitted to do, liberals, or, perhaps more accurately, Statists, will first preface that definition with a one-sided declaration of what the Government should prohibit the individual from doing.
Think about it.
The entire gun control debate, from the liberal standpoint anyway, is rooted in this twisted logic. Instead of focusing on the why of these acts (motive), in classic knee-jerk fashion, liberals prefer to zone in on the how of the act (means). Which, in the end, solves absolutely nothing. I’m personally convinced that had liberals been around in the days of Cain and Abel they would no doubt have called for a total ban on rocks or rope or whatever object Cain might have used to murder his brother.)
Refusing to address the root cause of violence – the malicious intent of one’s heart (or sin), whether it be mass or individual acts – is what leads to these incessant circular discussions liberals like to engage in about what “weapon” to ban next, whether it be handguns, knives or Pop-Tarts. Contrary to the logic of secular humanism, enacting more laws does not result in us progressively becoming “better” human beings. What was true in the days of Cain and Abel is still true of mankind today – we are sinners!
When you really think about it, ‘liberalism’ can more accurately be described as ‘permissivism’ because, remember, what liberalism permits is first of all predicated upon what it prohibits. Which inherently means we’re no longer talking only about violence, but freedom (and, yes, that includes the freedom to be violent if one so chooses, though such a choice would obviously not be the ideal.)
Look, the truth is that to a liberal everything is agenda-driven.
To the liberal, an act of mass violence is tantamount to what a dying carcass represents to a vulture – an opportunity to be taken advantage of. It’s just that simple. Or, as Democrats Rahm Emanuel and New York governor Andrew Cuomo have both stated, “You never want a serious crisis go to waste.”
This is how liberals truly think.
“We must” never forget that.