Let's talk about sex, er, I mean, guns.

Once upon a time, the US Army had a strict no gay’s policy. The US Army’s argument was that two men attracted to each other would fraternize. This intermingling would, according to them, have a serious effect on their ability to give orders, would demoralize the troops and thus, would leave the US defenseless against communism. Of course, communism is the eventual outcome of any socialize nation, but that is a subject for a different time.

This upset the gay community because it showed that there was a stigma to being gay that could be associated with deviant behavior. Of course, being gay does not make one a deviant. Yet, the idea of one being gay automatically lumped all gay people into the same bucket. The US Military and by association: the US Government, thus the voting populous, made the ridiculous assumption that they couldn’t take the chance that a gay person was actually a good, ethically consistent, person, it was easier to assume that all gay people were sex crazy deviants that had no place in an agency that believed itself to be moral and superior to other endeavours. 

Over time the gay community won the respect of political ideologists such as the Democrats and the ACLU. They formed their own organizations. They put out the argument that they were people who wanted to defend their country like anyone else.

The US Army conceded, sort of. They went to a “Don’t Ask, Don’t tell” arrangement. At this point, they assumed what they thought was a fair middle ground. They didn’t want to know and I would assume that from their perspective they were saying, “Hey, we don’t care. Don’t want to know. Don’t make it the Army’s business.” Of course, it was not perceived that way by anyone inside or outside the Army. To the gay community that was even more insulting, like saying, “Sure you're gay, but you stay right there in that closet…we…do not…care.” Talk about insulting. Whether or not the US Army understood this at the time was irrelevant. The conclusion was that if you were gay you were still not part of that man's army.

Even the stoic anachronism of the US Army relented and threw out all of those old modes of thinking. But that is not the miracle. The part that matters here is that it changed the underlying epistemology. The old, ridiculous idea that being gay was deviant behavior started to lose value as a logical construction of moral reality. Oh, it still happens, illustrated by the fact we’re still arguing over the idea of gender-based bathrooms. That argument is the exact same argument: that a man who wants to use a “woman’s” bathroom must be some kind of deviant. No one stops to think that he is in a serious need for a bathroom. Both the gay argument and the gender argument are the same argument. In fact, the point of this whole paper is this basic argument.

There is an argument that suggests that if you disagree with a view, opinion, or class, from some group of people, they have the authority to force, by physical violence every one of those they call deviant, to behave according to their opinion of reality. This argument suggests that there is a distinction and some are all wicked, evil. It indicates that even if there is one that is good, it is better to rule over all of them and ruin the single person than to risk the possibility that the entire evil group is free to roam amongst us.

Being gay may not be something people can change, but the argument of their detractors is an ideological argument imposed by their philosophy of existence. This is absolutely true of any group of people who detracts against another group of people. And since it's a philosophic argument, it can be changed by changing the underlying methods of determining this argument.

Whenever I hear someone say: People don’t need guns. I hear: We don’t need gays in the Military. I hear: Muslims shouldn’t be allowed in the Country.

I hear Democrats calling Republican’s evil, I hear Republican’s mocking Democrats. I hear a philosophic argument of ownership, imposed by a pretend ruling class, based on an epistemology of fear. I hear cognizant dissonance for surely the same pretend ruling class would be offended and circling their own wagons if some other group was bashing one of their ideas of reality. It is that last one that makes all of this obscene. For each person sets an arbitrary line in the sand, playing an immoral game of one-upmanship, where they are the only moral authority to have a right to freedom and liberty, while everyone else should be treated as if they are evil and will cause harm to their ruling class.

The current world philosophy is that all men are evil and should be treated as such and if we harm a good person, then the cost of one man’s life is a fair price to pay for the cost of society. This idea is based on a false premise of reality. It doesn’t even bother to deal with reality. Instead, it imposes a false idea about reality and then forces all people to comply with that false idea. It, literally, destroys individuals for the sake of its notion of social reality.

The proper moral avenue is to assume reality is part of the picture, it shouldn’t be that hard, you wake up to it every day. What is interesting is that by their actions we see that most people, the vast overwhelming majority, want to be left alone to pursue their own happiness. That in reality, the appropriate moral philosophy is to assume and thus treat, almost all people as good people, to assume they know what they want and will do it through moral means and if one of the bad types arises, to deal with him on a one on one basis. 

Where the current moral philosophy is to throw out the baby with the bathwater, we should try and return to the idea that the individual baby is of value to the mother and get out of her way.

The irony, the comedy, is that this moral reality is what we actually do every day amongst ourselves, outside of 'government'. It is the behavior we use when we pump our gas. It is our arrangement we agree to with the grocery scanning our groceries. It is our daily, natural, interactions with everyone else: that they know what they are doing and should be left to it. Yet, for some reason, the immoral fear based classism of pretend moral superiority seems to exhibit itself in voting cycles. These voting cycles only further prove the point I make in “Unification of the Self & Liberty” that voting is an act of children who’s only value-system is to scream, “I want, I want, I want! Give it to me, now!”

When someone asks, “Why can't I own a magazine that holds 11 rounds?” The counter argument shouldn’t be, “Why do you need it?” That’s like saying, “You're gay, why would you want to go into the Army?”, “You’re a woman, can’t you wait for the woman’s bathroom?”, “You’re a jew, why wouldn’t you want to live in Israel, why live here?”

Because you don’t understand someone’s opinions of their reality does not give you the power to stop them, period. If it does, if you really believe that you own the power to author someone else's life, you would be a fool to be surprised when some other group decides to take ownership of you.  Of course, when one is too busy plucking away the splinter of thy neighbor's eye...