Why is self protection/self preservation offensive to Libs??

Question

I only ask because everything they say and do leads directly to this conclusion. Washington DC is in the middle of an upsurge of violence currently and most liberal leaders seem hell bent on policies which only leave the general populace more vulnerable,such as even more stringent gun control even though this has been an abject failure everywhere it's been tried. Boston also is in the same situation with leaders pushing the same measures that have failed repeatedly,including a ban on .50 caliber rifles even though they cannot site one case where one of these weapons has been used in a crime,rather than cracking down on criminals who they release repeatedly to commit more crimes they crack down on law abiding citizens god given right to protect themselves and their families,why is there this great aversion to self protection and self preservation when the police have proven time and time again that they and the govt either cannot or will not protect you?

Answer 1

Believe it or not in a court decision it was affirmed that the police are not required to protect you, and most of the laws the Lib's pass are nothing more than feel good see what I have done laws to promote themselves. When Florida was first trying to pass concealed carry laws all the anti gun nuts were saying it would cause crime to go up and there would be shootouts in the street, when if fact after the law passed crime went down as did the crime in every other state that passed concealed carry laws.
And the reason is the criminals DONT KNOW WHO IS ARMED.
Law abiding citizens should be allowed to carry concealed weapons after training and a background check, it is a great responsibility that if used in the wrong way could cost you your freedom and everything you own if it misused.

Answer 2

They are of of the mistaken concept that the police will protect them.

They are unwilling to accept a court decision that the police have no duty to protect one against a non-violent or violent crime unless they happen to be on hand to prevent it.

The court ruled that police departments are only required to "TRY" to solve crimes, not prevent them.

It is interesting to note that the most crime-ridden and violent cities in out country, including Milwaukee, Washington D.C., New York City, New Orleans, Detroit, Chicago, etc. are all run by Ultra Left Democrats..

Answer 3

Can there be more than one correct answer to a world problem? The fact that you have a solution to your problem that works for you does not mean that someone else will come up with the same solution to that same problem. Many might argue that loosening, or just keeping gun-control laws at their current levels only means that many people who should not have them have access to guns. I think that it has been proven, just by examining death rates regarding gun possession vs. no gun possession, police statistics, etc, that crimes are much more likely to be committed if the perpatrator has a gun or firearm in the first place than if they had never had the weapon. Many crimes might never be committed if the criminal never had access to a gun. It is MUCH MUCH easier to commit a crime if you're in the possession of a gun as opposed to not having one. So ask yourself: why do the gun manufacturers make so many guns in the world? Is it their goal to have everyone own a gun? What would that mean for the world if everyone owned a gun? Would anyone be safe then?

Do you or have you ever had anyone that you love, a friend or family member, been injured or killed by a gun? Maybe the "liberals" that you like to typecast are just people who have experienced a loved one shot or killed, and they are so disillusioned with the fantasy of "God-given right to self-preservation" that they would like to see guns restricted as much as possible to weed out people, potentially criminals, who might be dissuaded to have guns if it means such stringent controls.

I can see your point of "God-given right to self-protection", but at what point does having a gun stop being protecting your rights and become infringing on someone else's rights? An analogy with nuclear weapons can be made. If you are the one who possesses the nuclear weapon, you're fine with nuclear weapons, but if you don't have them and your neighbor does, are you still going to be as happy with nuclear weapons?

Answer 4

The "New Deal" was a horrible failure. FDR kept us in depression for 8 years (1933-1941).

Socialism is a huge failure, look at modern Europe (11% avg. unemployment).

The war on poverty is a failure.

Liberal run cities are disasters ( New York, D.C., Los Angeles, New Orleans), they all have the highest crime rates and poverty rates.

Despite ALL of their ideas being failures, they keep trying to push them on us. If they ignore history and reality on all these other ideas, why would they pay attention when it comes to self protection / preservation?

If you want to know the right thing to do, just ask a liberal and do the opposite. You can't go wrong.

Answer 5

I agree with you that this is not right. Decent citizens need to be able to protect themselves. Taking away that right would not serve anyone well. However, I don't think it is just or right to judge all liberal beliefs or all liberal people as not ever making policy that benefits more people. On this, I agree, as I would on many of their policies. It depends on the issue, and only proves that we need to be very discerning when voting.

Answer 6

It 8is offensive to them as it makes it more difficult to exert power over them..

The prime order for a Democrat is to try to exert power over other people.

It is of interest to look at the Democrats who control their party and see how many of them inherited their wealth or married it.

Contemplate how you could develop a sense of self-esteem if you were too stupid or unable to exert power over people by your own self worth unless you could buy your way into politics.

This is what happened to Many Libs [John, Robert, Edward, Patrick Kennedy,
both Senators from California, Senator Cant well, Senator Kohl, John Kerry,
Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, Robert Byrd, etc.]

Once entrenched they moved into the No Self Defense, No National Defense mode and are still there, regardless of what a few of them say.

Answer 7

Why do raving, violent neo-cons define anyone who rejects their insane delusions as "libs"? I am not a liberal or a conservative, republican or democrat. And you are NOT the voice of America.

Your fear and violence have nothing to do with reality, but are reflections of what is going on in your sick little mind.

Answer 8

Because we don't want you to be protected or preserved.