Like so much else that passes for liberalism these days, “gun control” is based on the idea that appearances are always to be preferred to reality. In this case, the gun controller likes the appearance of being hip, modern, and progressive, regardless of the consequences–for guns are something that only beer-swilling rednecks own, and if one is to remain a member of The Club, one must stay as far away from those people as possible.
And like all pushes for “gun control,” what lurks beneath every word is a preening pacifism that, in the final analysis, would rather criminals prevail than a citizen abandon appearances and snatch up a gun for defense.
Newsday, my local daily paper, recently ran an op-ed by a Methodist pastor (who better than a man of God to urge self-immolation?) that tells the tale of Dr. Martin Luther King’s decision to get rid of his firearms because, at least according to the author, these were antithetical to King’s message of nonviolence:
“King never called for a repeal of the Second Amendment. He had no quarrel with hunters, target shooters or police officers carrying weapons. He did not command his followers to lay down their weapons. But he led by his own example. What he preached was something far more radical than gun control: rejecting violence as a way of righting wrongs, and a willingness to suffer in pursuit of justice.”
Oh, how by blood doth boil. It’s not the self-righteous tone that gets me so much as the urge to render me as helpless and neutered as the author has rendered himself. If gun control always reveals a latent pacifism, then pacifism always reveals a latent moral equivalence: Notice the glib implication that “rejecting violence” entails rejecting self-defense as well. Even a gun kept at home purely for protection is a mortal sin. You are to accept your fate at the hands of home invaders for purely cosmetic reasons. Gandhi thought the British should welcome the Nazis to their shores; these nitwits want your home to be everyone’s castle but your own.
This sort of thing was to be expected on Martin Luther King Day, an occasion when trolls show their bona-fides by invoking King on every issue of the hour, and when every word drips with the threat of being called racist for disagreeing. But rest assured that this trope will continue long after this year’s MLK Day has passed. Everyday I hear new reasons why I shouldn’t defend myself. “What if the intruder takes your gun?” “What if you shoot another member of your family by accident?” Ah, yes: much better to be killed than own a gun. Much better to be a corpse than a NASCAR-watching hick. Keep up appearances at all costs, even the cost of risking the life and health of you and your loved ones. Sorry, not for me. While they’re burying you with the Nobel Peace Prize, I’ll still be alive, at home, watching re-runs of The Honeymooners. The difference between a martyr and a redneck is that the redneck’s still breathing.
The fact that the peaceful protests of Ghandi and King work say more about the societies they worked in than anything else. A nonviolent protest can only work in a society that is fairly open to begin with. Otherwise you wind up like the people in Tienanmen square, ground under the treads of tanks. The likes of Hitler, or Stalin, or Saddam Hussein would’ve absolutely loved the idea of all their political opponents gathered together in one place unarmed. To them it would be a fine opportunity to let the army get some machine gun practice, or maybe test out that new nerve agent they’d been working on.
This article does bring point out an interesting facet of modern liberalism that I’ve never truly understood though. That is the apotheosis of victimhood as being the most holy of sanctified states from which all righteousness flows. The only explanation I can come up with is some form of group masochism, never before in human history have prople glorified being the losers. To many of them, they really would rather be a “rape survivor” and garner sympathy than have just shot the bastard before he could do the deed. As unbelievable as it sounds I really have run into liberals (especially in Europe) who have flat out told me they would rather be victimized than harm their attacker. They seemed genuinely shocked when I said I’d shoot the guy who broke into my house. It’s a perversion of the highest order that defies all rational explanation.
And you know, I don’t really care that they’d rather be raped than defend themselves. But they insist on making that choice for me, and THAT is not acceptable.
But if you think about it even their pacifism is poorly thought out, hypocritical BS.
Gun control nuts almost always offer the 911 system as a rationale for civilians not needing guns. “Just call the cops” they say. So in their mind it’s immoral to take up arms in your own defense, but paying someone ELSE defend you with a gun is just fine.
I recall reading George Orwell commenting that Gandhi’s non-violent protest campaign could only have worked in a British colony, and that if he had tried those tactics in French Indochina, he would have been unknown, since he would have gone into prison after his first protest. he never would have left prison.
This pastor is grossly irresponsible to encourage his parishioners to disarm. When violent thugs break into their houses, murder their children, rape their wives, steal everything they have, because they were unable to defend themselves, what will that pastor say at their funerals? Will he commend them for their non-violence? WIll he praise their adherence to liberal principles, as they lay cold and dead, on a slab?
Probably. Because liberals are @#!#ing crazy.
“…guns are something that only beer-swilling rednecks own…”
Ever notice how this group is never responsible for mass shootings?
Yep: how many mass shooters have been NRA members? One or two?
And it’s nice to see some NON-hagiography re: MLK at an American conservative website. I hate to see rightwingers trying to outdo each other (and the left) by talking about how wonderful he was, while ignoring the bad things about his life and legacy.
The death of ordinary people serves no purpose even in a movement like this. Pacifism as an idea only works on a large scale- a great many ordinary citizens (e.g. the Amish) who take a stand or a great man like MLK or Gandhi. If you’re just one person, especially one person with a family, your duties are different. Your death will make no difference, but your life might.
Oh my goodness. “Your death will make no difference, but your life might.” Dana, that phrase of yours will prove historic.
Self-defense is not violence. Attack somebody out of the blue with a gun, and get charged with aggravated assault, attempted murder, or murder. Defend against an attacker with a gun, no count in the aggravated assault numbers police file for the FBI Uniform Crime Reports each year. (Assuming justice system works as intended, and defender truly innocent of engaging, escalating, entrapping, etc.)
Self-defense effectively reduces violence. Many attackers who get shot have long rap sheets, and would likely continue picking out innocent victims in the future if not stopped. That’s the theory behind incarceration: Take predators out of the public for safety’s sake.
Until Second Amendment supporters change this piece of the narrative, the pseudo-morally superior violence mongers will continue winning on this talking point. People like this minister are the ones who promote violence by ensuring there’s a large pool of defenseless prey. It’s hilarious that Sidwell School hired 11 armed guards to protect Obama’s daughters and all the other elites’ children attending there, while Sidwell is a Quaker shool. Remember that Quakers historically eschewed “violence” while benefitting from the safety created by their armed neighbors.
Restrictive racist gun laws were used in this country to keep firearms out of the hands of Blacks. That was also the reason for a segregated military which kept black soldiers from acquiring fighting skills.
Minority groups should be especially concerned about restrictive gun laws. When the subject comes up I always remind my fellow Jews to remember the Warsaw Ghetto.
“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.”
– Mahatma Gandhi
The Deacons for Defense and Justice was an armed self-defense African-American civil rights organization in the U.S. Southern states during the 1960s. Historically, the organization practiced self-defense methods in the face of racist oppression that was carried out under the Jim Crow Laws by local/state government officials and racist vigilantes. Many times the Deacons are not written about or cited when speaking of the Civil Rights Movement because their agenda of self-defense – in this case, using violence, if necessary – did not fit the image of strict non-violence that leaders such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. espoused. Yet, there has been a recent debate over the crucial role the Deacons and other lesser known militant organizations played on local levels throughout much of the rural South. Many times in these areas the Federal government did not always have complete control over to enforce such laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Just this morning, I was shown a fake sign patterned after the “gun-free zone” signs we so frequently see at schools and such. It read:
I showed it to a colleague, who immediately commented, “Seeing how obviously ridiculous that is, how could anyone take the ‘gun-free zone’ signs any more seriously?”
I had no answer for him.
See, MLK’s legacy has always fascinated me.
This quote, in particular drives me up the wall. “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”
Not the quote itself, but where it took us. You see to make his dream come true, the left brought in policies where the criteria to qualify is based on skin colour, not character.
No irony intended, I’m sure.