Gun owners "flip switch" point. Do you agree with this?

[Lumpy]

Quoted from Quora.com

Bearing Arms ·
Posted by Murphy Barrett

Chris Everett gun owner, extensive knowledge in technical and legal issues related to guns.

Why do conservatives say that gun control would cause a civil war, which is long and protracted, when conservatives can't even be bothered to get up and go protest for just a few scant hours?

A few years ago, over on Larry Correia’s blog, he said this bit:

A friend of mine who is a political activist said something interesting the other day, and that was for most people on the left political violence is a knob, and they can turn the heat up and down, with things like protests, and riots, all the way up to destruction of property, and sometimes murder… But for the vast majority of folks on the right, it’s an off and on switch. And the settings are Vote or Shoot **** Everybody. And believe me, you really don’t want that switch to get flipped, because Civil War 2.0 would make Bosnia look like a trip to Disneyworld.

The thing that bullies don’t realize is that their victims almost always have a point where “taking it” becomes “kick your **** face in”. On that day, they won’t meet force like for like. They will absolutely curb stomp you until your brains are leaking out.

You don’t know when that moment comes. Neither do I. (Though I think we’ve been really close at least once lately).

[Holland&Holland]

It is the difference between folks who have a moral compass and those who are spoiled brats who have gotten away with every kind of tantrum, mischief, and crime there entire lives.

[xd ED]

It is the difference between folks who have a moral compass and those who are spoiled brats who have gotten away with every kind of tantrum, mischief, and crime there entire lives.

^^^THIS^^^
One side is entertaining itself; the other attempting to live a reasonable life.

Poking sticks at a bear might well be fun for some...until suddenly it's not.

[Lumpy]

I forget where I first ran across this, but it seems relavent:

“The most terrifying force of death comes from the hands of Men who wanted to be left Alone. They try, so very hard, to mind their own business and provide for themselves and those they love. They resist every impulse to fight back, knowing the forced and permanent change of life that will come from it. They know that the moment they fight back, their lives as they have lived them, are over. The moment the Men who wanted to be left alone are forced to fight back, it is a form of suicide. They are literally killing off who they used to be. Which is why, when forced to take up violence, these Men who wanted to be left alone, fight with unholy vengeance against those who murdered their former lives. They fight with raw hate, and a drive that cannot be fathomed by those who are merely play-acting at politics and terror. TRUE TERROR will arrive at these people’s door, and they will cry, scream, and beg for mercy… but it will fall upon the deaf ears of the Men who just wanted to be left alone.”

– Author Unknown

[BigBlue]

All accurate. And the above really sums up the differences between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives want to be left to do as they will as long as it doesn't harm others. Liberals want to control others for anything they perceive to not be 'right'. Liberalism is a mental illness.

[jdege]

Liberals want to control others for anything they perceive to not be 'right'.

Progressives want to control the world. Their claim to be liberals is a lie.

[Jackpine Savage]

I think this sentiment plays a role too.

I prefer peace. But if trouble must come, let it come in my time, so that my children can live in peace.

Thomas Paine

[Holland&Holland]

Liberals want to control others for anything they perceive to not be 'right'.

Progressives want to control the world. Their claim to be liberals is a lie.

Tomato tomoto

[jdege]

Liberals want to control others for anything they perceive to not be 'right'.

Progressives want to control the world. Their claim to be liberals is a lie.

Tomato tomoto

Progressivism was founded in absolute rejection of the principles of liberty and individual rights.

Yes, they stole the word, trying to sell the lie that progressivism is the new, improved liberalism, but we should not accept that as anything but a lie.

To allay these suspicions and to harness to its cart the strongest of
all political motives - the craving for freedom - socialism began to
increasingly to make use of the promise of a "new freedom". The coming
of socialism was to be the leap from the realm of necessity to the
realm of freedom. It was to bring "economic freedom", without which the
political freedom already gained was "not worth having". Only socialism
was capable of effecting the consummation of the age-long struggle for
freedom, in which the attainment of political freedom was but a first step.

The subtle change in meaning to which the word "freedom" was subjected
in order that this argument should sound plausible is important.
To the great apostles of political freedom the word had meant freedom
from coercion, freedom from the arbitrary power of other men, release
from the ties which left the individual no choice but obedience to the
orders of a superior to whom he was attached. The new freedom promised,
however, was to be freedom from necessity, release from the compulsion
of circumstances which inevitably limit the range of choice of all of
us, although for some very much more than others. Before man could
be truly free, the "despotism of physical want" had to be broken, the
"restraints of the economic system" relaxed.

Freedom in this sense is, of course, merely another name for power
or wealth. Yet, although the promises of this new freedom were often
coupled with irresponsible promises of a great increase in material wealth
in a socialist society, it was not from such an absolute conquest of the
niggardliness of nature that economic freedom was expected. What the
promise really amounted to was that the great existing disparities in
the range of choice were to disappear. The demand for the new freedom
was thus only a new name for the old demand for an equal distribution
of wealth. But the new name gave the socialists another word in common
with the liberals, and the exploited it to the full. And, although the
word was used in a different sense by the two groups, few people noticed
this and still fewer asked themselves whether the two kinds of freedom
promised could really be combined.

There can be no doubt that the promise of greater freedom has become one
of the most effective weapons of socialist propaganda and that the belief
that socialism would bring freedom is genuine and sincere. But this
would only heighten the tragedy if it should prove that what was promised
to us as the Road to Freedom was in fact the High Road to Servitude.
Unquestioningly, the promise of more freedom was responsible for luring
more and more liberals along the socialist road, for blinding them to
the conflict which exists between the basic principles of socialism and
liberalism, and for often enabling the socialists to usurp the very name
of the old party of freedom. Socialism was embraced by the greater part
of the intelligentsia as the apparent heir of the liberal tradition:
therefore it is not surprising that to them the idea of socialism's
leading to the opposite of liberty should appear inconceivable.

- F. A. Hayek, "The Road to Serfdom"