And when you say “history”, can you be more specific? Is this something they’ve been doing with every article they’ve published for the last 180 years, or is it in reference to a handful of articles in the last decade or so?

The lack of an eminent PERSONAL danger allows them to ignore actions that, if placed in their back yard, would spurr them to action.

For example, let’s assume that my family is being held against our will at gunpoint while our house is being robbed.

Is my family in danger? Obviously. Will the danger pass? Probably. So I wouuld probably not try some Bruce Willis take-out move on the gunman. That would be stupid.

Try another scenario. Bear attack. A grizzly is bearing down on my son and daughter. Chances are I’m going to step in to do something to get the wild animal off my kids.

These two examples apply directed to types of danger in societies.

Sometimes our freedoms are violated in the short term, to varying degrees of uncomfortablility (the home invasion example). Most people are not inclined to react in a way that would be revolutionary if they are not terribly opposed to the status quo.

Whereas when we feel in eminent peril (bear attack), we are spurred to immediate actions which can be far outside our normal day-today dispositions.

People who say ‘I’d rather die than lose my freedom’ are blatant hypocrites if they travel by air.

During the period where they are detained and questioned (not to mention barred admission if they are carrying firearms) I hope these champions of freedom are yelling and fighting and defending their personal liberties right up until the point where they get arrested, and unable to bear the thought of living for an hour without their f”>Tonal freedom, take their own lives in protest.