Skip to comments.Why the Liberal Hatred of Citizens With Guns
Posted on 02/13/2013 7:39:51 AM PST by Kaslin
Youre snug in your cabin in the mountains outside of Big Bear, California. Snug, but fearful. Theyre searching for a killer near you. A terrifying, heavily armed former cop from Los Angeles who has gone on a killing rampage.
Suddenly you hear gunshots. You part the curtains to look outside ... and theres the man whose picture youve seen countless times on TV over the past few days running toward your house as he returns fire to police officers in pursuit.
Just a few weeks ago you had been considering buying an AR-15 just in case it might be needed to defend your home from predators of the two and the four-legged variety. They dont call the place Big Bear for nothing. You couldnt buy one, though, because private ownership of these weapons had been outlawed. That didnt stop the killer. He was carrying one ... that along with several pistols. The law didnt seem to deter him at all. The murderer was still far enough away that you could stop him with one shot through your window, but that option had been taken away by anti-gun zealots.
Somehow you dont feel comfortable with only your handgun and its seven-shot magazine to protect you from this approaching danger. You know the killer, who is rapidly nearing your door, is much more heavily armed than you. Things arent looking all that rosy for you and your family right now.
Why did this have to happen? Why were these liberals -- these Democrats -- so hell-bent on reducing your capacity to act in your own self-defense in a situation just such as this?
Interesting question, isnt it? Setting statistics aside -- the statistics on the number of people shot by lunatics on killing sprees versus the statistics on the number of times a civilian uses a privately-owned firearm to defend themselves every year, usually without ever having to pull the trigger leaving those statistics aside, just what is it about the liberal Democrat mind that brings forth this primal fear, this hatred of the idea that a private individual would own a gun and use that gun in self defense?
I think I have some ideas here. Lets share:
The liberal penchant for gun control starts with their obsession with controlling the lives and actions of those considered to be their inferiors ... and anyone not liberal is inferior. To amplify the point; progs believe that their innate intellectual superiority gives them a right to control the lives of the not-so-bright. You can only buy a 12 ounce soft drink, you ignorant fool. Stop putting all that salt on your food. You cant negotiate your own contract with an employer. Well tell you how much youre allowed to work for. Union membership is not a decision for you to make. Well make that decision for you. We know best. Do as we say and youll be just fine.
What amazing arrogance! Liberals (the more self-aggrandizing among them prefer the term progressives I just call them progs or proggies) have the most dangerous of superiority complexes superiority complexes coupled with power.
Now since liberals are entitled to use their superior intelligence to order and control your life, it stands to reason that theyre going to get their proggie panties in a wad when the great unwashed start to show signs of individualism and self reliance. And to a lib there is no act of independence and self-reliance that is more infuriating and alarming than the act of owning and perhaps using a gun for the purpose of defending your life and your freedom. How dare you accept the responsibility for your own safety?
And there you have the crux of this anti-gun effort the left and their Dear Leader are putting forth. The very architecture of this gun control campaign is based on an attack on individualism. These anti-gun zealots know their assault weapons ban will not save any lives. The last one didnt, the next one wont. Theyre fine with that. Saving lives is not their goal. They know that background checks wouldnt have prevented Sandy Hook, Aurora or almost any other mass shooting. Theyre fine with that. Saving lives is not their goal. They know that not one gun control measure they have proposed would have stopped this rogue LA cop. No problem. Again, thats not the goal theyre working toward. They know that the so-called gun show loophole is a complete fiction. Doesnt matter. The media certainly isnt going to call them on that, and its the best lie available for moving toward gun registration; which, history shows us (even in this country) leads to confiscation.
The left is trying to reign in a beast. Well, a beast in their eyes anyway. To a liberal -- to todays progressive Democrat -- the independent freedom-loving and self-reliant American is a dangerous beast who must be controlled, a wild horse that must be broken. Individualism must be attacked and discredited. There was, after all, a reason liberal icon Ted Kennedy referred to and praised our war against individualism!
Were supposed to all be a part of a team ... a team of well-behaved horses pulling the carriage of big government along. A headstrong horse that refuses to respond correctly to the masters whip cannot be tolerated. A person with a strong sense of self-reliance and individual self-worth is, similarly, a dangerous and out of control wild animal that must be corralled corralled for the common good. The person who celebrates their individualism, and the laws that protect their individual rights, is a threat to the Democrat holy grail of all-encompassing governance. The individual, the independent American, the self-reliant and freedom-loving troublemaker must be wrestled down and the bridle of government domination slipped over their heads.
Obama and the Democrats had their gun control plans ready long, long ago. The plan was ready to be implemented; they were just waiting for two things to happen.
First, of course, they had to re-elect Barack Obama. The second necessary element needed to be a crisis a mass murder committed with guns preferably so-called assault weapons. That first criteria Obamas reelection would be the reason liberals didnt implement their push against the Second Amendment when the shootings happened at the theater in Aurora, Colorado. Obama was still campaigning for his second term. Dang it! A crisis that cant be exploited! But then, after Obamas re-election, came Sandy Hook. That was it prerequisites satisfied it was time to move against guns.
Democrats love the term gun violence. You heard it last night during the State of the Union speech. Note, please, that the term refers to an inanimate object, the gun, not the person who used that gun to kill or wound. To cite the perpetrator would be to hold an individual responsible for their actions with the gun. In the liberal world this cannot be allowed. The instrument must bear the blame, not the individual using it, for you cannot hold an individual responsible for their actions without first recognizing the concept and free will of the individual in the first place. In the world of the left the gun commits the crime the spoon eats the ice cream.
This isnt about saving lives. Its all about breaking the spirit of independent-minded and self-reliant Americans who still believe that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that the term shall not be abridged is much more than a mere suggestion. Can that spirit be broken by the incessant hammering of the left and an obedient (or legitimate, as Joe Biden calls them) media pressing the lefts anti-gun message? Or have we reached the point where Obama and the Democrats have, perhaps, pushed their agenda a little to far and a little too hard.
As Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto is reputed to have said after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve." With a bit of luck and maybe luck is what we have to rely on at this point the same might be said of the lefts attack on the Second Amendment. Time, and the reaction of patriots, will tell.
The police were up against one of their own who is trained with weapons, knows how to use them, knows police tactics, and had no block to unlimited access. Yet, this criminal was still unable to put up any resistance to the police with whatever he had.
Somehow the government is still scared of Mr. and Mrs. America.
Great post! Spot on!!!
“Somehow, the government is still scared of
Mr. and Mrs. America.’
Tyrants are terrified of honest people with guns.
(Schoolyard bullies will always be schoolyard bullies.)
Great things to think about. You probably don’t need a defense rifle because the fire will get you first. It seems like every crazy person with a gun is going off and killing people at this point. What’s up with that? Have they been given drugs that are timed to make them do this while our “legiscritters” yack about taking our rights away from us. My wife and I fought for our 2nd amendment rights during Klinton’s reign but this is beginning to look like a typical Zero appearance, where they hand pick who will be in the audience. It almost seems staged....... God help us all!
2,000 to 1. There were 2,000 LEOs surrounding the fat puke. I'm glad he's dead, but let's put things in perspective. There are maybe 60,000,000 gun owners in the U.S. with perhaps 10 million who are hard core 2nd Amendment types.
That's a 10,000,000 man militia right there vs 800,000 LEOs nationwide. It took any army of 2,000 to take out one guy. Maybe an openly tyrannical government could declare martial law and fly the Chinese PLA in to take our guns but I suspect there wouldn't be a treasonous politician or jackboot left alive when it was over.
(If they disarm us any more and the SHTF someday, you'll know who to go looking for to address YOUR grievances. HINT: Look for the one running uphill in the Nike sneakers).
Revolt is coming.
while true, the progcomms are indeed suffering from a superiority complex, the naked truth is that they seek peasant disarmament to help them survive the hornets nest theyre kickin...
thats all there is to it, they need to have the monopoly of force to *get their way*...because they seek power...period...
sooner or later, its use em or lose em...
But who says all the members of the armed forces and police would follow the dictates of a tyrant like Obama? I would bet that if Obama issued such a decree, which I know he'd love to do, many people in the military would think about staging a coup. Certainly many, maybe the majority of military people side with 2nd amendment gun owners. In the case of civil war, you'd most likely have the great majority of armed citizens and the majority of the military on the same side. Many big city police department members would side with Obama, but most small town and country police would probably be with us as well.
“The left is trying to reign in a beast. Well, a beast in their eyes anyway. To a liberal — to todays progressive Democrat — the independent freedom-loving and self-reliant American is a dangerous beast who must be controlled, a wild horse that must be broken. Individualism must be attacked and discredited. There was, after all, a reason liberal icon Ted Kennedy referred to and praised our war against individualism! “
So far, they were all registered democrats, and one the child of registered democrats.
Oboma is a community agitator. That's how he gets things done. He "nudges" people into anger, or to act out in anger, and then uses that anger as a weapon against them.
Things are not going as planned. The right isn't who he thought, or was led to believe all his life, we were. We're not the ones taking up the arms. Instead, he's agitating his own irrational base (the people we've always thought they were.), and a lot of people are getting killed because of it.
We can't let it get that far. The tyrant and the treasonous, the ones GIVING THE ORDERS have to be removed (one way or another, peacefully or with prejudice), leaving the Jackboots leaderless.
Interesting....and long overdue.
I am beginning to see thoughts and certain words appear here on FR. Words and thoughts that in decades past would never have seen the light of day.
Perhaps these thoughts and words will, in my lifetime, lead to actions.
Again...Interesting and long overdue.
You part the curtains to look outside...
...because you're an idiot who doesn't know how bullets work.
When you hear gunfire, you get away from it, unless you are supposed to respond to it.
Still he killed 2, times that by one hundred thousand patriots equal two hundred thousand dead gun banners.
I do not think the police or military could handle two hundred thousand casualties.
That's a 10,000,000 man militia right there
No, a militia is organized. This is (potentially) 10,000,000 well-armed people who are geographically dispersed and many of whom actively hate each other.
As a cop said about forty five years ago, “When only us cops have guns, us cops won’t get shot!”
The left worships state power. The left hates personal power. The left hates personal wealth, personal accomplishment, personal firearms they even hate traditional models of masculinity. Anything that gives the individual power in the face of the state is anathema to the left.
History. In every dictatorship in recorded history there has never been a shortage of wannbe thugs, concentration camp guards, throat cutters (Cambodia) who were ready willing and able to arrest, brutalize, and murder their fellow citizens at their governments' behest. SOME cops might quit, but the majority didn't join the police to question orders or to judge the constitutionality of laws. As one self identified cop on FR told me - if you have a problem with the law, take it up with the legislature because it's my job to enforce it not question it.
Oh and BTW in the NYC gun confiscations in the early '90s there was not a single reported instance of cops failing to arrest anyone who had one of the evil "assault rifles" after the confiscation deadline had passed.
he’s apparently not seen the youtube videos of the cops shooting themselves, or others.
It's the reportage. Media campaign.
It's the reportage. Media campaign.
In the English language the plural pronoun they does NOT refer to a singular subject such as "the person" Neal Boortz has accepted the Liberal use and redefinition of language to avoid suggesting that there might be some difference between the sexes. In English the masculine gender pronoun is used to refer to a gender indefinite person. The liberal, being gender indefinite, insists that the plural shouldbe thus used.
It’s because “Hatred is not a family value.” Correct; it’s a liberal value.
good point by you and others.
We are also forgetting that we have a branch of government that loathes “self help” because it neutralizes the need for that branch. That is the judiciary. Judges see the second amendment as competition. If citizens take care of problems then what will they do?
(not as if civil trials are all but extinct on the federal level)
Yeah, big city cops...I mentioned that. And certain members of the military would fall in line as well. But there’s too many American military personnel who don’t like Obama or any Marxists. In the case of a tyrannical grab for power, I think we’d see some kind of coup from patriotic armed forces people. And many small town and rural cops have already said they’d refuse to follow any kind of confiscation order.
Libs are easy to figure out. Dear leader could outlaw eating and 70% of them would starve to death.
There is a large difference between not following a confiscation order and actively siding with the populace. I agree that some police forces might be inclined to sit it out, but I'm still sure that there will be no shortage of JBTs more than willing to murder their fellow citizens for resisting the government's unconstitutional actions. After all with 0's newly announced drone policy summary executions have now become standard policy. Who needs due process? An outmoded concept from that living document - the constitution.
You need not go further than the police state that was New Orleans post-Katrina for examples of rogue cops from all across the country wantonly violating the rights of US citizens.
What is now? Fifteen such cops have been successfully prosecuted for murder?
That statistic begs the question of how many more SHOULD BE?
If most government employees actually lived according to proper moral dictates there would be NO IRS, there would be NO ATF, there would be a lot of unmanned agencies because they would not be able to hire people to work in such anti-constitution and anti-freedom agencies. I don’t know why people persist in indulging fantasies of being saved by the moral superiority of people who demonstrate no such characteristics.
I am too old to work for the government but if I could do so and chose to do so in the face of what is going on you could rest assured that I had already decided to abandon all pretense of morality.
Here is your answer:
Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.Human nature is exactly the same now as it was in 1775, We face the same tyranny except from Washington instead of London Instead of redcoats we have black uniform SWAT teams eager to shoot someone because the can. Unlike 1775 the bulk of the populace fears freedom and hates and envies those of us who don't want to be slaves.
I may be wrong on this, but I know of none that were successfully prosecuted for murder. They were prosecuted for things like "violation of oath of office" or violating civil rights. such things carry a lesser sentence than murder.
He did kill some. The gubmint knows that if it comes to it, they won’t win through attrition.
Reminds me of a movie with Yul Brynner as a nazi (really a Prussian) general who was some kind of resistance leader and he is found out at the end of the movie as he’s about to get on a plane and get out of the country.
The “policeman” is played by the guy who was Goldfinger in the Bond movie...and was in “Is Paris Burning” too.
He has a line when Brynner says “it is all going to go away and they won’t need you”... paraphrasing, to which the cop says “there is always somebody who needs a policeman for “order”.
So there is— because this is sometimes all a policeman knows how to do....to go “woof, woof” and exert force for the tyrants who pay him/her. Just a thought— some will do as told.
I listened to the recording of the encounter with the Rangers and sounded like at least 60 shots were exchanged between those three men.
My feeling? A loaded .45, 10 mags for reload and an M1A chambered in .308 with another 10 mags for reload.
After that, boxes of ammo to reload...or a rocket launcher...
Anytime one dedicated force goes against another, the losses are horrific. The Scripture alludes to this problem. See if you can find the principle in the following passage:
Luke 14:28 "For which one of you, when he wants to build a tower, does not first sit down and calculate the cost, to see if he has enough to complete it?
Luke 14:29 "Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation, and is not able to finish, all who observe it begin to ridicule him,
Luke 14:30 saying,' This man began to build and was not able to finish.'
Luke 14:31 "Or what king, when he sets out to meet another king in battle, will not first sit down and take counsel whether he is strong enough with ten thousand men to encounter the one coming against him with twenty thousand?
Luke 14:32 "Or else, while the other is still far away, he sends a delegation and asks terms of peace.
If this nation would turn back to God, we would have millions of dedicated people to tell this administration that it can NOT do the evil things it is doing (misspending money, giving welfare to undeserving citizens and non-citizens, undermining the voting system by pandering to illegal aliens, promoting all kinds of immorality, promoting gun confiscation from innocent citizens, etc., ad nauseum. We would have justice through the legal system to prosecute and imprison those officials who have so mismanaged our country and brought it to this low point.
However, if we do NOT turn back to God, He is going to give us over into the hands of evil people. The government we have now cares little or nothing about actual crime against citizens. If they did, they would put a 2000:1 ratio on cases and make some examples out of gang members, murderers, financial fraud in corporations (wait until the stock market tanks), etc. -- but they're not doing that unless someone commits a crime against the ruling elites.
People almost always get the kind of government they deserve. Sadly, the innocent minority trying to live correctly also has to accept the government THEY (the other immorality majority) deserve. The answer to solving the problem is simple, but I guarantee you the MSM won't touch the topic.
Gun control is not being driven from the bottom up. It being foisted upon us top down by propaganda from wealthy urban elites and the MSM who see mass ownership of firearms as a threat to their political power base which is the Democratic Party. It is about consolidating urban power and removing it from other demographics. These same people who wish to deprive others of the right to self defense and firearms all have their own security forces and police at their beck and call.
Looked like he put up a whole lot of resistance. At last count, I think it was four cops dead. Armed citizens outnumber the cops by thousands to one. If even a tiny fraction of armed citizens takes out only one cop, even if that citizen dies, the police are done.
"Somehow the government is still scared of Mr. and Mrs. America."
Yes, they are, and rightly so. Because they know they can't carry a policeman around for protection when they leave their gated, secure enclaves.