Site icon The Truth About Guns

Frankincense, Myrrh and Cognitive Dissonance

Previous Post
Next Post

 

With today being Festivus, ’tis the season for the airing of grievances. So along those lines, a certain member of my family was thoroughly outraged when Dick Metcalf was fired for his article that was widely viewed by the people of the gun as taking a soft approach to the encroachment of gun control. Apparently MSNBC had singled out RF for his opinion on the matter and she concluded that it was all Robert’s fault that Metcalf was fired. “He has free speech!” she cried, “He should be able to voice his opinions, even if you disagree!” I calmly replied . . .

that Guns & Ammo is a commercial enterprise and if we (the buyers) weren’t happy with their product, then that might concern them. “So you don’t want to listen to any opposition to your point of view?” was her response. To which I pointed out that Guns & Ammo is a standard bearer for the 2nd Amendment, so they’re held to a higher standard. This week, though, she was livid and calling for Phil Robertson’s head on a platter.

So I asked her, “Doesn’t he have free speech? Shouldn’t he be able to voice his opinion?” Her response was that because it was “hate speech” it shouldn’t be tolerated, and he should be thrown out on his ass. “So he needs to be fired from an entertainment show because of one remark he made expressing his religious beliefs?” Her reasoning was that the show makes its money from sponsors, and should listen to its viewers. “But isn’t his point of view valid? It’s his religious belief, after all.” She was having none of it and declared once again that his words were “hate speech” and shouldn’t be allowed. I tried to equate the two situations and get her to recognize her own cognitive dissonance, that Metcalf’s article was just as offensive to 2nd Amendment supporters as Phil’s comments were to fans of the 14th, but she just stared at me as if I was insane.

And that’s the modus operandi of those on the left who are so impressed by their own tolerance. They love the bill of rights when it protects things they love, but anything they disagree with needs to be silenced, sanctioned and exempted from any special protection. Religious beliefs too “right-wing” for your tastes? Ban them as hate speech. Guns too black and scary? Ban them as “assault weapons.” Obviously, the bill of rights should only apply when it’s protecting something you approve of or agree with.

And I still have a full week here before I fly back to Texas . . .

Previous Post
Next Post
Exit mobile version