In an article published in The Nation and entitled, “We Fear Each Other, When Guns Themselves Are The Real Danger,” Jewish professor Harold Pollack of the University of Chicago’s Crime Lab argues that keeping a firearm for home defense is irrational and dangerous.113 Pollack claims that because deaths from home invasions are rare, the greater threat is the gun itself and its presence in your home, so that the most logical course of action would be to remain unarmed.
Pollack further argues that keeping a firearm for home and self-defense is “obviously a primeval motive to have a gun by the bedside or whatever.” Pollack reasons that because there are more suicides each year than there are deaths from home invasions, it is obviously much safer not to have a firearm in your home.114 Again, Liberals are conflating the method of suicide with the cause of suicide. Guns simply do not cause suicide. Pollack is also appealing to the number of homicides during home invasions, while entirely ignoring the number of assaults and rapes that occur during home invasions each year.
Let us look into the data and see exactly how “primeval” and “irrational” the fear of home invasion truly is. According to the US Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics, there are on average over one million home invasions per year. That means a situation in which a criminal unlawfully and forcibly enters into a residence while a person is home at the time. In over 266,000 of those home invasions, the person who was caught at home became a victim of violent crime at the hands of the invader. Among those 266,000 victims of home invasion, many were severely injured and raped.115
For perspective, according to RAINN, the largest US anti-sexual assault organization, there are an average of 321,500 rapes and sexual assaults each year in the United States.116 According to Pollack and many Liberals like him, the fear of a violent home invasion is “primeval,” despite the fact that violent home invasions are nearly as common as rape and sexual assault. Would anybody tell young girls and women that taking precautions against possible rape is “irrational and primeval”? Not hardly. Yet Liberals constantly mock, berate, and denigrate those of us who look at the data and conclude that one million home invasions per year, over a quarter of which turn violent, is a more than reasonable rationale for arming oneself.
Appeals to the Second
A favorite Liberal tactic in the constant assault on the rights of gun owners is to appeal to the wording of the Second Amendment. Ironically, yet predictably, this appears to be the only time Liberals appeal to any of our founding documents or ideals. Their argument is that the line in the Second Amendment regarding “a well regulated Militia” implies that being able to keep and bear arms is entirely predicated upon participation in an official militia. Had Liberals bothered to read The Federalist Papers, or any of the individual States’ Bill of Rights from the same era, they would have their answer, and see the absurdity in their argument. “Well regulated” at the time of writing meant little more than in working order. The Militia was described as the people. Not a formal government entity. The common man. The shopkeeper. The farmer. The tailor. The cook. They were the militia. We were the militia.117
Beyond the simple advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess to a greater extent than 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 an almost insurmountable barrier against the enterprises of ambition. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, these 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 gather the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed by these governments out of 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.
— Federalist 46.118
Further, a simple question will illustrate the feebleness and thoughtlessness of the Liberal argument. If the writers of the Bill of Rights did not intend for the common people to have the ability to keep arms for their own defense, why did these men allow this situation to continue for their entire tenures as Statesmen? Surely if they meant that only the governmentally sanctioned armed forces were meant to have firearms, they would have done something about all the rifles that private citizens had in their possession, right?
Articles such as “The Second Amendment Doesn’t Say What You Think It Does,” published by Mother Jones, are commonplace on Liberal news outlets.119 These articles all essentially argue the same thing: those who wrote the Second Amendment did not mean for individuals to be able to own firearms to protect themselves. While claiming that the wording of the amendment is vague and meant for a particular time in history, the Left entirely ignores all other sources available to us in our investigation of the intended meaning of our most crucial freedom.
In the Constitutions of all but six states, the right to keep and bear arms is explicitly expressed.120 Many of these were ratified after the US Bill of Rights, and are written in more explicit language.
Vermont’s Constitution, Article 16:
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State — and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.
Ohio’s Constitution, Article 1.01, Inalienable Rights:
All men are, by nature, free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and seeking and obtaining happiness and safety.
Article 1.04, Bearing Arms:
The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.
Clear as day.
Furthermore, the Left claims that the Second Amendment is only applicable to the weapons available when the Bill of Rights was written. The Left frequently argues that the writers had no way of knowing what firearms might become over the course of 200 years. I disagree entirely. The line reads, “right to bear arms,” not the “right to bear muskets.” The writers were not dense men. They knew the importance of citizens being able to possess weaponry on par with that available to the government.
I believe that requiring a permit to carry a firearm is an extreme infringement upon our rights. Currently around a dozen states have Constitutional carry laws; if you can legally buy a firearm, you can legally carry it on your person or vehicle without a permit. If we as law-abiding American citizens really have the inalienable right to defend our life, liberty, property, and safety, we should not be required to get a permission slip from the government expressly allowing the protection of that right. Our rights were not given to us for free; our ancestors spilled endless treasure and blood to bestow these rights upon us. There is nothing which can justify the notion that the State needs to know who carries and who does not. If you can legally own a firearm, there should be no further background check or permission required. The assumption that the State should be operating under is that we are a free and heavily armed society, and that those without a weapon are the exception rather than the rule.
Private ownership of arms serves as a bulwark against the State’s exerting heightened control over its citizens. Any sort of registry or licensing requirement should be met with fierce skepticism. The state ought to be kept in the dark and should not know where, nor with whom, concentrations of arms lie within the nation, should they ever make the fatal error of crossing the line.
When we take a moment to read what t
he writers of the Bill of Rights expressed about arms, when we look at individual State Constitutions, and examine gun laws at the State and Federal level, it becomes quite clear the Second Amendment means exactly what gun rights advocates have always claimed. In no way does the Militia clause rescind the idea that individual citizens have the right to keep and bear arms: the contrary. Further, this very issue was argued in front of the Supreme Court as recently as 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller. The case upheld the notion that private citizens do in fact, have the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, even if they are not a part of any official militia.
The Heller decision, by the way, is one that Hillary Clinton felt the Supreme Court got wrong.121 In an interview with Clinton, she stated, “If it [the right to keep and bear arms] is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation. And what people have done with that decision is to take it as far as they possibly can and reject what has been our history from the very beginning of the republic, where some of the earliest laws that were passed were about firearms.”122
Actually, the first federal gun control law was not passed until 1934. In point of fact, some of the earliest laws regarded immigration. The Naturalization Act of 1790, for instance. The 1790 act allowed free white persons of good moral character, to apply for citizenship if they had been in the country for two years. Yet somehow I do not think that Clinton will be ready to accept a return to such legislation any time soon.
What part of “don’t tread on” and “shall not be infringed” is so difficult to comprehend? I believe we are growing weary of the “repeated injuries and usurpations” that we constantly face from the Left. The last group of people that were dense enough not to understand how far they were pushing our kind ended up learning the hard way.
Christmas night, 1776. Patriot General Washington led a group of Revolutionaries across a frozen river, through the frigid darkness, to kill enemy soldiers. In their sleep. For freedom.
That revolutionary spirit lives on in all of us. We must never forget where we came from — all the more so, as it appears the Left already has.
Rational Fears
Liberals display an almost irrationally obsessive desire to control guns, limit their availability, and damage the industry as whole. There is no data supporting any of their stated agendas. It becomes clear that their position is one of fear and loathing toward what the hostile elite see as an “old America.” The remnants of a WASPier and freer society. One they would prefer became extinct, substituted with more of their own elitist kin and their pet rootless hordes. They see us as the enemy, the last regiment of people fighting to keep this nation from being taken oven by an invasive, alien clique. And like any good war strategists would know, disarming us would greatly behoove them. Their interest is not in “saving lives” as much as it is in preserving their own kind, and disarming those they fear the most.
The Liberal desire to ban AR-15, AK-47, and M14 pattern rifles is not in the safety interest of the American people. It is simply about control. Leftist regimes for the last hundred years have needed an unarmed population so that they could continue to rule with impunity. The insatiable thirst to limit gun rights among citizens is not about the safety of the civilian population; it is about the safety of the ruling elite, an adversarial cabal that is terrified of a well armed population. They have manipulated their legions of useful idiots into believing that this is an issue of public health or public safety, when in reality it is the age-old issue of the ruling class holding down a citizen uprising.
You can do anything you want to a group of unarmed people. Liberals hate nothing more than a fair fight — as we’ve seen in their incessant desire for censorship of dissident thought. The desire to ban rifles is simply another expression of the desire to exert greater control over those whom they rule, and the only thing standing in their way, is the sacred force found within those rifles. For a rifle has the means to transform the most ordinary of men into the most exceptional of revolutionaries.
There is at least a remnant of the Wild West left in America. It’s not all that uncommon to see somebody with a pistol at his side at the gas station, the market, on a hiking trail, or out on a bicycle trail. And every time I see it, I can’t help but smile. There is an enduring sense that America is still an unbridled stallion, immune to taming by cosmopolitan dogmas.
Well armed citizens will only take so much. You can only push good men so far before their patience runs dry. And when that fateful day comes, and if those men are armed, Leftists everywhere know that nothing will save them.
Manifestations of the Liberal Illness: The Right to Bear Arms
Deceitfulness oozes out of every Liberal argument against the freedom to bear arms. They lie about the reasons behind the Second Amendment, they lie about the data regarding firearms in our day. Even former Presidents of the United States and people running for office lie. Obama lied about America’s gun violence as compared to other nations; Hillary lied on her website about current gun laws and about the terms of background checks. Despite all the evidence that suggests that guns in the hands of private citizens act as deterrents to crime, Liberals refuse to modify their views on the matter. When confronted with the facts, Liberals often become agitated and angry, as their cognitive dissonance becomes too great.
The old Liberal maladies make their appearance here, too. The inability to recognize the negative outcomes of their actions, as demonstrated by Liberal claims that the UK and Australia are “doing gun control right,” despite the rise of crime in the UK and Australia after their respective firearm bans The appeal to altered definitions in the language of the Second Amendment, despite mountains of evidence from the Federalist Papers and state Constitutions, even despite a landmark Supreme Court case. Feelings of being victimized, as when anti-gun groups like Moms Demand Action claim that guns make society unsafe, or politicians declare that “weapons of war” are threatening our collective safety. We also see the Liberal moral self-righteousness arising during gun debates. Liberals believe they are on the “right side of history” here, as everywhere else. Not near enough people remind Liberals that over one hundred million people are lying dead in mass graves due specifically to Leftist regimes, and that over 262 million were massacred because they had no way to defend themselves.
It is not idle to ask whether those 262 million would agree that the Left is on the “right side of history.”
From Cluster I symptom 1, 2, 3, and 5, appear. Symptoms 6, 7, 8, and 9, are apparent from Cluster II.
Cluster I
1. Deceitfulness, indicated by repeated lying, grand exaggerations, or omission of contrary information, with the purpose to advance their chosen narrative and discrediting others.
2. Irritability or aggressiveness towards anybody that questions or opposes their views. Coupled with the inability to recognize they own hypocrisy, double standards, and doublethink.
3. Inability to adjust views when presented with information contrary to their own beliefs.
4. Frequent projections of their own traits onto others.
5. Difficulty in dealing with a loss of control or power, or a strong desire for control and power.
Cluster II
6. Appeals to altered and redefined definitions of words, or relies on fictitious terms for argumentation.
7. Consistent feelings of having been victimized or wronged, without any actual harm being done. Seen also as playing the victim after attacking others.
8. Intense sense of righteousness or moral superiority.
9. The inability to recognize the negative outcomes of their own actions. Often placing the blame on others.
10. Intense guilt or self-hatred, often manifests as hatred towards one’s larger group identity.
III
Climate Change
The year was 1974, global cooling and disco were all the rage. Unfortunately, only one of those fads has continued into the next cen
tury. It’s still the same old scheme, one that goes by an ever-changing name. But it is all too typical of the Left to change names and definitions to suit their current political agenda.
The global cooling scare of the 1970s, now dismissed as simple conjecture, was huge. It dominated news reports, papers, and magazine articles. The pollutants in the air were going to block out the sun’s rays, causing massive cooling to the point we would not be able to grow food. Then, with no food, we all were going to die.
If you’re wondering, that never happened.
Later, we saw feverish anxiety over global warming. The oceans would rise, coasts would flood, and all hell would break loose as millions of people were displaced.
Strangely, this, too, never came to pass. And in light of all these inaccurate predictions, we have now been introduced to the nicely noncommittal term, “climate change.” Thus far, the only “inconvenient truth” has been the harsh reality for the Left that their incessant fear-mongering has never ceased to be mostly, if not entirely, built on conjecture.
Yes, the climate is changing. Just as it has since the dawn of time. But on the basis of this universal truth, the Left leaps to several invalid assertions and claims — everything from pretending to be the only party that cares about environmental issues, to wanting to levy the burden of this “crisis” solely on the Western world.
Legacy conservatives like Theodore Roosevelt were the men who truly fought to protect our national lands. When the petrified forests were being ransacked, and when the giant redwoods were being sold for cheap lumber, it was a Right-wing politician who stepped up and fought for conservation. Had it not been for men like Roosevelt and John Muir, it’s quite possible the Grand Canyon would now be the world’s largest privately owned trash dump, instead of being a revered destination the world over. The Liberal narrative that it is only coastal elites who care about our wild lands and naturalistic history is absurd, and based on no part of factual reality.
Liberalism Unmasked Page 12