When I first read these two articles, my initial reaction was one of 'Duh, it's their usual double standard' mixed with 'How selfish and one-sided they are.' But the more I think about it, the more I realize this indicates a deeper issue.
There's an inherent desire for freedom built into all people. While personally I believe God wires us this way, I can understand various people each having their own ideas about where this desire originates. However, what I have never seen is someone requesting to be controlled, asking to be locked inside a box, or otherwise desiring to have no choices or freedoms. Instead, I see people who mistake restricting the rights of others as their idea of freedom for themselves. This happens to be the most obvious scenario, but there are others. Let's consider abortion. Pro-Death proponents tend to say it's their freedom with their body, ignoring the right to life their unborn child has. Pro-Life supporters understand freedom for ALL people means that the right to life for the unborn is a crucial right. Feel free to mention other areas where we can see this in the comments.
Weerd makes a great point when he makes this statement:
Well first I’ll point out that anti-rights people, and that includes “Progressives” in general are bigots by nature.
Quinn often uses a phrase similar to this: "If you want to know what the left is doing, look at what they are accusing the right of doing." How often does the left attempt to portray those on the right as bigots? How often do they try to find any anecdotal evidence to suggest that we fall under any one of the negative '-ists' being used today? Why is that? I sincerely believe it's to distract from being caught as being bigots themselves. They realize that if they make a loud enough noise about it, we won't show their flaws, because they talk such a good talk. However, their actions belie their words. Things like the 'fairness doctrine' and other concepts which are designed to silence the right, or stifle what we have to say are nothing more than an attempt to avoid having to have direct, honest communication about any topic.
So why is that? Do they realize that the ground on which they are standing is as soft as it is? Do they understand that they have no sound logic in their arguments? Are they afraid to learn the truth? I can think of no reason why they would avoid honest, fair discussion aside from a knowledge (whether they are aware of it or not) that their arguments are either invalid or indefensible. What are your thoughts? I think Bob addresses that excellently in his article.
So where does that leave us? Clearly we have the disadvantage in the 'feelings' department, because we understand that logic and reason MUST trump emotion when it comes to dictating policy. So while in reality that is a very good stance, the culture and media today emphasize feelings, 'what feels good is right' and this lack of absolutes partnered with a humanistic worldview that causes people to have the concept in their minds that they don't need to think through dilemmas before taking steps. They tend to ignore logic in favor of an easy, sounds good solution.
That makes our job more challenging. When people are willing to think through a process, use simple accurate logic in that process, and reason honestly with themselves and those around them, it's easy to see what we consider to be obvious. Instead, groups like CSGV, Brady, et al play to feelings, ignoring logic, and using false information and lies to get their message across. When people have been conditioned to not do research on their own, and to take at face value what they are told, and that if their feelings matter in things, it becomes difficult to discuss with them from a sound position. Now, we need to learn to keep the discussions on the facts, the verifiable, documented facts. We need to keep the conversation away from feelings, and refute any argument that is founded on them. We need to understand why someone would think it 'feels' good, but then demonstrate to them why 'feeling good' doesn't mean it IS good. We need to make absolutely certain that we practice what we preach as well.
I think we also sometimes forget that we are on the side of liberty and freedom. The constitution already gives us the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. We need to make it perfectly clear to those who have a view that differs from that simple understanding that they are the ones who are trying to take our freedoms, and make us the victims of bad policies, criminals, and the other things which come with a disarmed citizenry.