Posted on 02/13/2013 7:39:51 AM PST by Kaslin
You’re snug in your cabin in the mountains outside of Big Bear, California. Snug, but fearful. They’re 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 there’s the man whose picture you’ve 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 don’t call the place Big Bear for nothing. You couldn’t buy one, though, because private ownership of these weapons had been outlawed. That didn’t stop the killer. He was carrying one ... that along with several pistols. The law didn’t 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 don’t feel comfortable with only your handgun and it’s 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 aren’t 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, isn’t 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. Let’s 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 can’t negotiate your own contract with an employer. We’ll tell you how much you’re allowed to work for. Union membership is not a decision for you to make. We’ll make that decision for you. We know best. Do as we say and you’ll 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 they’re 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 didn’t, the next one won’t. They’re fine with that. Saving lives is not their goal. They know that background checks wouldn’t have prevented Sandy Hook, Aurora or almost any other mass shooting. They’re 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, that’s not the goal they’re working toward. They know that the so-called “gun show loophole” is a complete fiction. Doesn’t matter. The media certainly isn’t going to call them on that, and it’s 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 today’s 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!”
We’re 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 master’s 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 – Obama’s reelection – would be the reason liberals didn’t 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 can’t be exploited! But then, after Obama’s 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 isn’t about saving lives. It’s 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 left’s 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 left’s attack on the Second Amendment. Time, and the reaction of patriots, will tell.
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.