By Neal Boortz
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment