There are going to be a lot of CAPITAL LETTERS in this column. In tech speak, this is known as shouting. Sorry to shout, but sometimes it’s necessary in order to be HEARD.
Recently, a friend sent me a sobering video clip. It features Texas State Rep. Dr. Susan Gratia-Hupp testifying before the U.S. Senate on the Second Amendment. It was sobering because Ms. Gratia-Hupp described the fatal mistake of not carrying her handgun the day she went with her parents to a cafeteria. An insane gunman burst in, spraying gunfire and killing both her parents along with many others.
When something tragic like this happens, people interpret it in one of two ways. Politicians and liberals think, “Aha. An insane gunman burst into a cafeteria and sprayed it with gunfire, killing many people. We need to ban guns. Of course, this won’t keep insane gunmen from getting guns, but that’s OK.” Constitutionalists and (ahem) normal people think, “Aha. An insane gunman burst into a cafeteria and sprayed it with gunfire, killing many people. We need to make it easier for law-abiding citizens to carry guns so this guy could have been taken down.”
There is a fundamental difference between these two responses. Unfortunately, it’s the former and not the latter response that gets turned into laws. This is because the latter position gives power to the people. The former position gives power to the government. Of course the government will choose the former. Duh.
But what riveted me about the video was not the horrible story of the gunman. It was Ms. Gratia-Hupp’s final words: “I’ve been sitting here getting more and more fed up with all of this talk about these pieces of machinery having no legitimate sporting purpose. No legitimate hunting purpose. People, that is NOT THE POINT of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is not about duck hunting … it’s about our rights … to protect OURSELVES from all of YOU guys up there.”
In other words, gun ownership protects US from THEM.
We always forget (or are NOT TAUGHT) that the Revolutionary War was NOT a well-armed militia fighting against a FOREIGN government. They were fighting their OWN government, a government that had grown from a “dangerous servant” into a “fearful master.”
Those who understand the Bill of Rights are paranoid that our guns are being taken away little by little. We’re told we’re wrong. When Obama condescendingly assures us that it’s not necessary to stock up on guns prior to his swearing in, he is deliberately missing the point. Guns aren’t just for homeowners concerned about personal safety. Guns are to protect US from THEM.
“Lawful gun owners have nothing to fear,” Obama smoothly told us in a December statement. “I think people can take me at my word.”
WRONG. We’re not taking him at his word – we’re taking him at his voting record. Fortunately, a lot of people don’t believe him, and that’s why gun sales are up 50 percent by some accounts.
What Obama and his ilk don’t want to admit – and by not admitting, they also DON’T WANT TO REMIND US – is that the original purpose of the Second Amendment was precisely that: to protect US from THEM. The abuses of government are kept in check by the threat of an armed citizenship. Only by recognizing the potential for the citizenship to actively defend their own GOD-GIVEN rights (“… that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights …”) will government officials abide by their constitutionally defined limitations.
Consider the following scenario. A robber is walking along looking for a place to rob, when the road splits. A sign pointing to the left says, “This way to Idiotville, a gun-free town.” A sign pointing to the right says, “This way to Toughville, where every household has a gun.” Which road do you think the robber will take?
Consider the following scenario: Politicians are walking along looking for a country to dominate, when the road splits. A sign pointing to the left says, “This way to Idiot Country, a place where the citizens passively roll over and do what they’re told.” A sign pointing to the right says, “This way to Tough Country, where everyone is armed and no one will give up their guns.” Which road do you think the politicians will take? Duh.
And now we learn that Obama has appointed Eric Holder as U.S. attorney general – an “anti-gun extremist who has assailed gun owners since his days in the Bill Clinton administration,” according to the Gun Owners of America website. Oh, but let’s not forget Obama telling us that “lawful gun owners have nothing to fear. … I think people can TAKE ME AT MY WORD.”
See? Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean you’re wrong.
You can’t admit to being paranoid, of course. That’s because paranoia is a mental condition, and Rep. Bobby Rush of Illinois is pushing a firearm licensing bill that requires gun owners, among other things, to submit their mental health records. Does spittin’ mad count as a mental condition?
But “criminals seek out victims who are not going to fight back or offer resistance, let alone shoot them,” observed Joseph Farah in a December 2008 commentary. The exact, precise sentiment can be offered with a one-word replacement: Politicians seek out victims who are not going to fight back or offer resistance, let alone shoot them.
But we’re too busy gobbling up socialized medicine, food stamps, welfare, subsidized housing, and business and mortgage bailouts from the government trough. The list of goodies we’re offered is endless, and endlessly diverting. As long as we’re getting everything free, we don’t notice what’s being taken away. Our heads are in the trough and our rumps are in the air, waiting to be kicked.
Thomas Jefferson prophetically said it best: “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.”
So shout it with me: Just because you’re paranoid DOESN’T MEAN YOU’RE WRONG.