Total Gun Confiscation Genie Can’t Be Put Back in Bottle
“What Happens When You Write About Gun Control in America” Esquire’s Dave Holmes titles a May 21 follow-up. “Gun-rights activists threaten to shoot you (among other reactions).”
Follow-up to what?
A piece from a few days earlier titled “Okay, Now I Actually Do Want To Take Your Guns.”
‘[T]hat piece ends up being pretty moderate when you actually look at it,” Holmes insists unconvincingly, but reminiscent of a line from “The Princess Bride. “Had any of these folks bothered to read the piece … they would have seen the part where I said: ‘It won’t happen, of course. So let’s meet in the middle.’ I am coming from a place of passion, but I am willing to compromise.”
Some of us did bother and we’re not. We have no interest in meeting you or any other useful idiot apparatchik so that you can incrementally infringe rights you have no claim to. We know the end game and we’re ceding no ground from which to launch the next incursion. That would make as much sense as throwing a scrap of flesh to a circling pack of hyenas and expecting it to sate them and persuade them to be on their way.
As for “coming from a place of passion,” demand a totalitarian monopoly of violence and you ain’t seen nothin’ yet. We know where that leads. So Holmes’ complaint about receiving “death threats” would be hardly unsurprising if it were true, which based on the examples he gives, is not.
If he didn’t file police reports, I call BS.
Nowhere does he quote anyone actually saying they are going to do him harm, and even if he did it would be on him to prove he didn’t make it up or it didn’t come from a fellow “progressive” trying to make gun owners look like terrorists. Instead he cites predictions of what would happen if he tried, which we of course know he would not—his type expects other men to gear up and do the risky wet work.
As an aside, that the phrase “Molon Labe” is new to him shows a person profoundly ignorant of those he would turn into enemies. In fairness, his readership admittedly could leave most of us in the dust if the topics were men’s fashion tips, mixing the perfect martini or where to go for the best mankini wax job.
Not to be outdone, sometime writer/actress Lauren Shippen shows “progressives” aren’t about anything if not stale and unoriginal ideas. I blocked out some words in the above graphic that you don’t need to guess very hard to discern, but if you want to see it uncensored, it’s still on her Twitter feed. While some might be tempted to just ask “Who?” and dismiss it as a leftist nobody (albeit Forbes considers her one of their “30 under 30” up-and-coming young media luminaries) making noise for attention, note that at this writing her tweet has amassed 65K “likes.”
“There is abroad in our land the growing thought that America is now in fact two countries sharing a common border and (mostly) a common language but divided along the answer to this question: DOES THE GOVERNMENT SERVE THE PEOPLE OR DO THE PEOPLE SERVE THE GOVERNMENT?” my friend and colleague Mike Vanderboegh often observed on his Sipsey Street Irregulars blog. “Two countries, two world views, two contradictory histories. Each irreconcilable with the other.”
It’s not a matter of agreeing to disagree. That opportunity will not be presented by those who would rule over all. If they reach the point where those pulling the strings feel emboldened enough to try for full-blown citizen disarmament after decades of incremental erosions, there will be those who defy them and those who actively resist orders articulated by Dianne Feinstein when she advocated “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in.”
And it’s not just so-called “assault weapons.” Remember, the Brady Campaign and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence both started with the goal to ban handguns. Those goals haven’t gone away, and Nancy Pelosi admitted that the piece-at-a-time strategy is still in operation with her “slippery slope” advocacy (echoed by Chris Murphy’s commitment to “baby steps” toward disarmament.
We’ve recently had major media outlets and a retired Supreme Court “justice” call to repeal the Second Amendment. A Congressman just demanded “Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters” (disregarding the fact that the right of the people to keep and bear “ordinary military weapons …that… could contribute to the common defense” is precisely what “shall not be infringed”). And from Dave Holmes’ melt down over the Santa Fe High School killings, we see that shotguns are also on the verboten list from those who want it all (and Fudds take note).
If and when those who demand the total citizen disarmament get around to trying it, odds are a core of armed citizens, possibly around three percent, will resist it. And if the Republic devolves into all-out civil war, those pushing gun owners into a corner from where there is no retreat might want to do the math and decide how the numbers look for “their side.”
This is existential. If Americans once more rebel against tyranny, there’s no reason to expect history will not repeat itself as far as the very personal and often violent Patriots vs. Tories conflicts that happened last time. If that does, those for whom no gun laws will ever be enough, and who egged it all on, should not delude themselves into thinking their roles will be overlooked if any of their opponents decide to adopt Bill Clinton’s rules of engagement. I’d also bring up Julius Streicher as an historical example of how such instigators have been treated in the past, but they’d start howling about being threatened by the mean old extremists (and lest they bring up the First Amendment, they’re the ones always reminding us of its limitations, and how speech they disapprove of “is not free speech.”)
So instead I’ll express gratitude for the wisdom of the Founders, who knew that just as arms in private, moral hands discouraged individual aggressors — most of the time without a shot being fired — so too does the knowledge of an armed populace work on a societal scale. And believe it or not, I’m also grateful for the impulse control-challenged leftists who just don’t have the self-discipline to stifle their outbursts. They confirm in ways they can’t take back that all the talk about “commonsense gun safety laws” is just a smokescreen, that what the totalitarians really want is everything, and the guns are just the start.
Anyone who scoffs that no one is talking about taking away your guns can be shown to be a liar. Thanks to the unabashed prohibitionists, that genie is now out of the bottle and can never be put back.
If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work. You can donate HERE.
David Codrea’s opinions are his own. See “Who speaks for Oath Keepers?”