An Insane Rant Gets to the Bottom of Gun Control

I think we’ve finally pulled one liberal’s chain hard enough so he screams:

Here it is. The NRA advocates armed rebellion against the duly elected government of the United States of America. That’s treason, and it’s worthy of the firing squad. The B.S. needs a serious gut check. We are not a tin pot banana republic where machine gun toting rebel groups storm the palace and depose the dictator.

We put the president in the White House. To support the new NRA president’s agenda of arming the populace for confrontation with the government is bloody treason. And many invite it gladly as if the African-American president we voted for is somehow infringing on their Constitutional rights.

Americans hate more than anything to get to the bottom of an issue.  I think that this is an insane rant, but sometimes insanity results when one gets to the truth, and in his irrational way he’s done just that.

Getting past issues such as self-defence and hunting, the bottom line issue for the left is that having widespread firearms ownership makes it possible (in principle at least) for the populace to resist the actions of their government in an effective way.  The inchoate fear of the left has been that, sooner or later, they will get an armed pushback that will stick.  (Kinda like we did in 1776…)

I addressed this issue in a (hopefully) more reasoned manner at the first of the year:

That, in a sense, leads to the second problem: how do we know that, at some point, our military, police, or whatever is in between would not fire on us in peaceful protest?  That’s an act that, in many countries, is unthinkable.  It’s the act that generally pushes how a regime is perceived from good to bad.  But what happens when that country is ours?  Who will come to our rescue?  Who will defend our human rights?  And is the moral climate in this country such that, if something like that happened (think Kent State) there would be an outcry, given the antipathy of much of our media towards such a large part of our population?  (There’s that “selective enforcement” again, in another form).

I’m not one of those people who think that widespread gun ownership will lead to the overthrow of the Republic.  To do that takes not only weaponry but organisation and effective leadership, and both are lacking in this country.  What will bring down the Republic will be a) its bankruptcy, b) a government “inside job” and/or c) external assistance (think that “sealed train” which Lenin took from Germany to Russia during World War I).

I should add that Dr. Swindell (I guess he has his PhD) doesn’t see much threat of an overthrew either.  But that hinges on the willingness of our military to kill its own citizens.  In addition to drone technology (which “sanitises” the process) it depends upon the willingness of a decidedly “red state” military to act against people with whom they have more in common than those who lead them.  That problem, in turn, leads to Mikey Weinstein’s insane rant on Evangelicals in the military, where he too calls people traitors for their convictions.  (My response to that is here.)

Here, then, is the leitmotif in this opera: in the opinion of those on the left who are willing to be honest about it, anyone who isn’t “all in” with the secularist idea and the expansive government that goes with it is a traitor and should be dealt with accordingly.  The left has come a long way from Vietnam days, when patriotism was a dirty word, to today, when they define agreement with themselves as true patriotism.  If that’s true, then this country isn’t worth defending, because we have, in fact, turned into the “banana republic” that Swindell denies that we are.

With all due respect to my Central American readers–whose countries have come a long way–the only reason we aren’t a banana republic is because we don’t grow bananas.  But wait: back in Palm Beach Public School we had bananas growing in the inner courtyard…sigh.

HT StandFirm.

Leave a Reply