barack obama, God and gun clingers, Heller, Hillary Clinton, James Madison, McDonald, socialism, the banality of evil, The Bill or Rights, The Founding Fathers, The Racist Roots Of Gun Control, tyranny, Vice President Pence
All the articles in this series may be found by entering “guns and liberty” into the SMM homepage search bar.
The first four articles in this series dealt with issues of philosophy and morality, even theology. It is now time to delve into issues far less lofty and divine, issues fought in the muddy and fetid fever swamps of Washington D.C., which was, ironically, built on swampy ground. As we have already established that the right to self-defense is a fundamental, unalienable right, a right not granted by government, a right which may not be lawfully infringed or taken away by government, it may seem odd to have to deal with politics in regard to that right, but such is the nature of man.
It is not widely known that a substantial number of the Founding Fathers did not want a Bill of Rights, while others would not sign or assist in the ratification of the Constitution without a solemn understanding that the Bill of Rights would follow in short order. They were afraid future generations of politicians would claim that rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights were the only rights of citizens. As it turns out, they were prescient in this and much else.
Gun control has always been an issue fraught with political intrigue, and reasonably so, for an armed society is a free society. No dictatorship can allow its subjects the freedom to keep and bear arms, as they will inevitably be used against the dictator and his thugs. Dictators, in consolidating power and control over their populations, always deprive them of arms, commonly through the application of deadly force. Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, Iran, all have followed this common pattern, as have all dictatorships before them. Free men wisely look upon restrictions on firearm ownership and use with a jealous and wary eye, for history warns them of the inevitable dangers and depredations.
James Madison, writing as“Publius” in the Federalist #46, clearly understood this political reality and the dark nature of human beings grasping for ultimate power over others:
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
The militia were the people, individuals who would band together when necessary, bringing their own weapons to overthrow a tyrannical government. Madison obviously recognized the individual ownership of arms as a powerful deterrent to would-be tyrants. Notice that there is, in Madison’s prose, no mention of self-defense, hunting or sport shooting. The primary purpose of the Second Amendment is the deterrence, and if necessary the abolishment, of tyranny in defense of liberty.
Yet contemporary would-be tyrants hate the Second Amendment, and never stop trying to destroy it, bit by bit. Hillary Clinton, in her failed presidential bid, actually ran on nullifying Heller, though she danced around such obvious language. Her daughter, Chelsea, assured Socialists Hillary would work for gun control every day. Armed citizens frighten would be despots, as well they should.
Barack Obama’s major 2013 anti-gun push was a spectacular failure. Most congressional democrats did not dare support him. Circa 2019, this is changing, particularly in the House. Draconian and surely unconstitutional anti-gun laws have been adopted in New York state, Connecticut, Maryland, California, and are under consideration elsewhere. Congressional Democrats/socialists, emboldened by Trump Derangement Syndrome and their disdain for normal Americans, are revealing as never before their anti-Second Amendment/liberty plans.
Tyrants rely upon the banality of evil. This is a term coined in Hannah Arendt’s 1963 book Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. The book is based on the trial of Nazi war criminal Adolph Eichmann. Arendt observed that Eichmann was not a deranged monster, but an ordinary, efficient bureaucrat that willingly accepted the mandates of the state, including murdering millions of innocents, including many fellow Germans.
But if a socialist government tried to seize privately owned arms, federal employees would not go along. Anyone thinking that is sadly, tragically mistaken in ways that would lead to their deaths and the deaths of millions of law abiding Americans. Many federal agents would not take up arms against their fellow Americans, but more than enough would. Madison understood this, and so must we.
Anyone wishing to learn how such a conflict would likely play out need only read Stephen Coont’s Liberty’s Last Stand.
Attempts to seize citizen’s guns might very well be the spark that ignites a second civil war.
There are very real and direct benefits in prestige, power, creature comforts, and domination over others for men and women willing to beat, torture and kill their fellow citizens. As long as they enjoy a monopoly on the means of applying force, they maintain those benefits, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. In such tyrannies, once the line is crossed, there is no going back, for not only will the state gladly murder a formerly loyal agent that suddenly develops a conscience, so too will their victims.
Mr. Obama, like a good narcissistic Socialist, was undaunted. During his 2014 State of the Union speech, he swore to use his pen and phone to pass gun control measures, measures that he could not obtain constitutionally, though the legislative process in the Congress. In his final two months of dictatorial power, he used executive orders, just as his weaponized agencies used rule making to impose a blizzard of tyrannical, unconstitutional measures.
I intend to keep trying, with or without Congress, to help stop more tragedies from visiting innocent Americans in our movie theaters, shopping malls, or schools like Sandy Hook.’ Obama said.
‘Citizenship means standing up for the lives that gun violence steals from us each day,’ he continued. ‘I have seen the courage of parents, students, pastors, and police officers all over this country who say ‘we are not afraid.
None of the measures Mr. Obama tried to pass would have, in any way, stopped the crimes he cited, nor would they today. Such laws only inconvenience and criminalize the law-abiding. And of course, the fact that Mr. Obama–the head of what is surely the most lawless administration in history–regularly bypassed the Constitution to work his will, was a matter of no small concern to normal Americans.
Mr. Obama worked to legalize millions of illegal immigrants, thus throwing open the border floodgates to millions more—the fruit of which we now see daily–the necessity of keeping and bearing arms against a tide of innumerable criminals–and I speak not of the honest man or woman merely seeking a better life for their family–can’t be denied. The perverse evil of Mr. Obama’s government, the governments of several of the state governors, and congressional Democrat/socialists in trying to disarm Americans in the face of this threat, and the never-ending threats of terrorism and domestic crime, likewise cannot be denied. Their enabling of vicious criminals, racists and anarchists while simultaneously crippling our police forces has made America a much more dangerous place.
That elected representatives should even think to propose laws that are so clearly unconstitutional, so counter to the very foundations of liberty, and that they should see their law-abiding countrymen as threats, should be alarming to all free men that wish to remain free.
Before I go further, a brief political primer might be useful. Generally, American Conservatives/normal Americans, have been supportive of the Second Amendment and Socialists have not. I’ll use the term “Socialist” as many Democrats no longer like to be associated with the term “liberal” or even “Progressive”—too many Americans have come to associate those terms with actual Democrat policies and intentions. Circa 2019, a Democrat Party dedicated to American constitutionalism no longer exists, as every announced 2020 presidential candidate rushes headlong to the Left. The goals and policies of the contemporary Democrat Party have become virtually indistinguishable from Socialist, or even Marxist, orthodoxy. Democrat, Progressive, Statist, Socialist, Communist, all are slightly different shades of the American left, and all despise firearms and their possession by free men.
For those familiar with the general philosophies of the respective political movements, this is to be expected and is a natural consequence of those beliefs. Few political differences more clearly delineate and illuminate the philosophies and intentions of Conservatives–normal Americans–and Socialists than their respective views on the Second Amendment. Keep in mind that this primer is, of necessity, brief and a generalization being painted with a rather broad brush.
Socialist Philosophy: Socialists are fundamentally concerned with equality of outcome. During a 2008 debate, Mr. Obama asserted that he would raise capital gains taxes even if doing so produced less tax revenue (as historically has been the case) because it would be “fair” to make ostensibly wealthier people pay more. The new self-described “Boss” of the Democrat Party, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, advocates a 70% or higher tax rate on the “wealthy”–whoever they might be–because they’re not paying enough taxes, despite the fact that the fiscal top 1% of Americans pay 37% of all taxes, and the top 10% pay 70% of all taxes. Remember that some 46% of American households paid no federal income tax in 2011, and the same is true today. For Socialists, the definition of “rich” is quite flexible, and given free reign, they would surely dramatically raise taxes on people not remotely wealthy, because that’s where the money really is.
This has been made absolutely clear by Obamacare, which was, from the very beginning, a vehicle for the absolute control of the population, and for the redistribution of wealth, though it has been somewhat defanged. If Socialists succeed in eliminating the private insurance market and mandating “medicare for all,”—which they very much want to do–they will be very close to absolute rule. The government that giveth, also, inevitably, taketh away, and for it’s own purposes having nothing to do with the welfare of the individual, particularly the individual not sufficiently supportive of the government.
All of this is perfectly predictable because it reflects the Socialist preoccupation with equality of outcome. In other words, in the name of “fairness,” everyone should have the same things: food, housing, medical care, conveniences, etc. That not everyone is willing to work for these things matters not. Perhaps the most commonly known aphorism relating to this concept is the Marxist “from each according to his abilities; to each according to his needs.” As a general, superficial, statement of “fairness,” it has much to recommend it. However, like so much of Socialist philosophy, it ignores the realities of human nature. Notice too that “fairness” is nebulous; it means nothing and everything. It also has the very salutatory benefit of allowing its user to conceal his true intentions. Who, after all, opposes “fairness?”
Socialism is by nature big government and absolute governmental power. This flows from the fundamental Socialist belief that man is perfectible, or at the very least can be forced to behave–even think–in approved ways. Only morally and intellectually superior, elite scientific Socialists are sufficiently evolved to keep everyone on the straight path of Socialism where utopia will be established, and perfect social justice will reign under their enlightened and benevolent rule. Normal Americans are untrustworthy God and gun clingers, homophobic, racist, sexist, unconcerned about the environment and “social justice. ” It falls to the scientific Socialist to force their less evolved brethren to better themselves, or at least to mouth the right platitudes. If only government becomes large enough, if only the right laws and regulations are written and enforced (and there will never be enough, for the process of perfection is never-ending), only then can man be perfected despite himself.
Socialism can never be wrong, for if it appears to fail, this means insufficient Socialism has been applied, not enough money has been spent (sound familiar?), normal Americans have been allowed to exist to oppose it (in a tyranny that has deprived peasants of arms, this is a lesser problem as they can more efficiently be killed), or it has not had sufficient time to work its miracles of transformation.
It was Barack Obama in 2008 who repeatedly swore to “fundamentally transform” America. However, in a February 2, 2014 interview with Bill O’Reilly, Mr. Obama backed away from that boast. This was certainly not an indication that Mr. Obama no longer intended such transformation, merely that he was reverting to standard Socialist tactics of lying about his true goals.
And after the 2014 mid-term elections, where Mr. Obama lost the House and the Senate, he made clear that he would accept no limits on his desires for power and the establishment of a Socialist utopia. With nothing to restrain him–-certainly not respect for the Constitution and the rule of law–-Barack Obama became the closest thing to an anti-democratic tyrant America has yet seen. A spineless Congress, in control for six of Obama’s eight years but unwilling to do anything to assert its constitutional power, enabled him,
Contemporary Socialists have, for the most part, abandoned any attempt at normal stealth, and are aggressively announcing their true intentions. If realized, they will greatly surpass Barack Obama’s bypassing of the Constitution.
Any philosophy that believes in big and ever-enlarging government must of necessity support high and ever-increasing taxes. In fact, taxes can never be high enough, and must be imposed based on “fairness”–whatever the elite choose to define as “fair” at the moment–-rather than a rational scheme of necessity. In practice, this means that taxes will always be highest on those Socialists do not favor, such as the wrong kind of wealthy and normal Americans that oppose them. Socialism is obsessed with class warfare. Pitting Americans against each other is one of its primary tactics.
Socialists are, at best, unsure of the existence of evil. Good is faithful adherence to Socialist doctrine and the goals of the state, but overt recognition of evil would require the admission that evil cannot be controlled by Socialism, hence evil must be understood as resistance to Socialism.
Unsurprisingly, many Socialists are irreligious at best, and often hostile to any expression of faith. This is commonly demonstrated in the writings of the Legacy Media which is irredeemably Socialist, for the most part, no longer bothering to pretend to be unbiased. Socialists commonly depict people of faith as fools, dupes, or dangerous lunatics seeking to impose their religious superstitions on all.
Socialists often reserve their greatest hatred and venom for those that oppose their policies. This is in large part why normal Americans trying earnestly to discuss policy with Socialists often find themselves on the receiving end of violently angry and irrational verbal assaults and name calling, “racist” being a contemporary favorite, followed closely by “gun nut,” “nazi,” “murderer,” “climate denier,” and other choice bits of invective.
For Socialism to flourish, the state must always take primacy over the individual. The state’s powers are absolute, and the people have no rights, only the privileges accorded them by current state policies and preferences. Despite continual lip service to “equality” and “fairness” and the welfare of “the people,” there is no rule of law under Socialism, no equal treatment under the law. The state, which has no morality, no conscience, cares nothing for any individual, only the abstraction that is “the people.”
As the 2016 election cycle conclusively demonstrated, the Socialist minions of the legacy media are nothing more than Democrat operatives with bylines. The media did everything it could to elect Hillary Clinton, utterly abandoning any pretense of professional, unbiased journalism.
This is why Socialists absolutely oppose self-defense and the means to secure it. Recognizing that fundamental, unalienable right is a tacit admission that the law-abiding individual has supremacy over the state. A state forced to recognize the natural rights, and the rights of the individual under the rule of law, admits that the individual and the rule of law are more powerful than the state. The admission that government derives its powers entirely from the people is toxic to despots. No tyrant can abide it.
Socialists support collective rather than individual responsibility, and embrace victimhood. If one is poor–for instance–it must be because they are black, female, illegal immigrants, the education system has failed them, society has failed them, someone or something is oppressing them. This is particularly true of certain constituencies that slavishly support Socialist policies in return for governmental largess. Members of favored victim groups bear no individual responsibility for their behavior or circumstances, and all right-minded people are endangered by anyone that believes the Second Amendment means what it says and says what it means, and the greatest danger is, of course, the NRA.
Socialists crave governmental power. To that end, power must be taken from “the people.” Socialists fear arms in the hands of the people, and always do whatever they can to disarm them. Among the most severely punished crimes in Socialist societies—even Great Britain–-are those involving citizen possession or use of arms. The possession of arms by citizens is an ever-present threat to the very existence of Socialism, and Socialists never cease their efforts to achieve total citizen disarmament. The Democrat party has always been at the forefront of gun control efforts, particularly in support of segregation. Gun control has its roots in the most evil expressions of racism. Historian Clayton Cramer’s essay “The Racist Roots of Gun Control,” should be required reading in every school in America.
Because they believe no right to self-defense exists, the means to exercise self-defense are illegitimate and must be taken from the law abiding.
Ironically, Socialists commonly hate and despise the Police, seeing them as stupid, racist brutes and oppressors, but recognize their social utility only when they keep Socialists in power. As I’ve noted in previous articles, the police—even in our democracy—have no obligation to protect any individual. In a Socialist state, the police actively play favorites, which never include the law-abiding.
Why would Socialists favor criminals, even terrorists? It takes little effort to find thousands of contemporary examples of what rational people would find amazing, inexplicable affection for and support of the worst elements of society. While some part of this may be nothing more than a perverse tendency to reflexively oppose the values of those they hate–-the normal American God and gun clingers of Flyover Country–-simply put, criminals and terrorists commonly share Socialist views and goals. They oppose individual liberty but support Socialism, because it gives them maximum freedom to work their wills, and accept the praise and support of Socialists who tend to see them as oppressed victims of normal society.
Most importantly, criminals overwhelmingly vote for the Socialists that make their lives so very much easier.
Next week: the continuation of the political differences between Socialists and normal Americans and why they define the American gun debate. I hope to see you again next Tuesday.