Gun control and statist clichés

A statist is someone who believes in statism. Statism is the ideology
or belief that the state is sort of, kind of, well, God. The state or
government is the font of knowledge, wisdom and understanding. One does
not need to be protected from the state because the state exists
to protect you! The state offers life (salvation), comfort to the
weak. Liberals, conservatives, Democrats and Republicans quote the
propaganda (or scripture) of the statist to achieve and maintain power
— or merely to get their way.

Statist religious dogma is so annoying. It is usually boring, always
disgusting, sometimes enraging and occasionally humorous. It is also
ignorant, manipulative, disingenuous and vapid. Most frequently used to
obscure and confuse the listener into agreeing to something which is
obviously wrong if examined in the light of truth; it is, in a word, a
lie.

I was driving alone the other day, pondering our God-given,
unalienable right to keep and bear arms. I was wondering why some
Americans do not understand the historical, constitutional and biblical
foundations of this necessary right. Why don’t they get it? Since facts
and truth are not compelling to them, let’s look at gun control in light
of their most sacred hyperbole.

One of the first platitudes I’ll examine is a favorite condescension
of the statist today:

“People fear that which they do not understand — things which are
different, this leads to hatred which results in discrimination.”

This fine bit of “wisdom” is used ad infinitum by statist
pontificators as they speak out against intolerance. The usual context
is that which addresses racism, and discrimination against the disabled.
I’ve always found this “truism” rather silly because I can’t reconcile
the implications with reality. For example, picture anyone you know —
or, for that matter, everyone you know. They see, for the first time, a
member of some other race. Their eyes bulge, their jaw drops, shaking,
they utter these words, “Oh my, that person is ‘different’!” “I don’t
understand!” “I am afraid!” “I hate him!” “I shall strike out in
discrimination!” Now visualize this comical scenario but with a blind or
crippled person. Pretty funny, isn’t it? The real goal of this rhetoric
is to denigrate everyone else but the “enlightened” and by definition
courageous statist and to advance their agenda.

Now, there is a kernel of true wisdom in the
people-fear-what-they-do-not-understand stuff, but more appropriately in
the context of inanimate objects or forces, not human beings. Do you
remember when your dad first taught you to swim or build a fire? How
about the time your mom first allowed you to use that large, very sharp
kitchen knife? You were not sure you had the expertise or coordination
to handle the task and you were afraid you might get hurt. These
fears continue to pop up during our lives when we first do something new
and somewhat dangerous: learning to drive, sail a boat, ski or ride a
horse. Would you be intimidated to use a chainsaw or blowtorch without
the necessary expertise? Why are many people afraid to fly in planes?
Because they don’t know how to pilot one safely to the ground!

My point is obvious: Guns are scary to the ignorant. They fear
holding them. They fear they might go off unintentionally. Sincere
gun-grabbers need to buy guns, keep and bear them, even. Learn to load
and unload. Check the safety. Learn to open the chamber to see if it is
loaded. Point it at a target and press the trigger. After shooting off a
couple of hundred rounds, they won’t be afraid because they will feel
confident of their skill and coordination. Now they can use that tool to
defend their family against something they will no longer fear —
criminals.

That leads me to my next cliché: “If this law saves just one life,
it is justified.”

In the typical context, this one is particularly obnoxious because of
its pure hubris. Any and all laws can save one life, so all laws
must be good. Trouble is any law that can save a life can take another
life (or many) the same day. Not one of the freedoms God has given us
(some are listed in the Bill of Rights) is cost-free. The obvious
counter balance is the truth that they preserve our free society of
self-government from the tyranny of power.

But what if the Second Amendment were responsible for saving not one
life but hundreds of thousands or millions? Would that sway the naïve?
Guns are used every day in the United States by law-abiding citizens
against criminals. About 2.5 million old ladies, men, children, moms,
blacks and whites, Jews and Gentiles thwarted assaults, rapes,
burglaries and murders by brandishing a gun last year. Now, what if we
reject this well-documented figure and accept say, 1 million defensive
uses? What if we could document only 100,000 lives saved because
of private ownership? Or, in statist parlance what if only one saved
life could be verified? If you’re a big-government lover, you must
concede the Second Amendment on the value of this one life, right?

Another favorite slogan, “We must protect this right, FOR THE
CHILDREN!”

No one knows how many times this laudable goal has been sinfully
misused in the last six years. It is truly frightening, this particular
brand of propaganda. After all, only the inhuman are against the
children. Every manner of usurpation has been justified in defense
of the children: government intervention in employment benefits,
intrusion into private family matters, stealing children from their
parents, government-school indoctrination, socialized health care, even
war, abortion and the final assault on the Branch Davidian church in
Waco.

But how does this rationale work in application to our God-given
right to bear arms in self-defense? We are commanded to provide for
OUR CHILDREN. Parents are given this duty by God. Firstly,
children must be protected from evil people called criminals. The single
most successful way to do that (and not get killed in the process) is
with a gun. Running away, yelling for help, struggling or using a knife
will more likely get you killed. Even giving-in to a criminal is less
successful than brandishing a gun. Parents must have guns, for the
children. Secondly, children must be protected from evil government.
Every genocide of the 20th century was perpetrated only after the
people were disarmed. Most of these illegal laws were passed not by the
government which finally perpetrated the mass murder but by a previous
“benign” government. How many millions of children have been killed
during mass exterminations? Do we owe the children of America
this protection? Thirdly, parents are the most important people in a
child’s life. Ask any kid, “Of the following, who are most necessary to
your happiness: President Clinton, Rosie O’Donnell, Dennis Rodman or
your mom and dad? Mom and dad, of course. If a parent’s life is most
necessary and valuable to the children why is it that many
believe only celebrities and officials have the right to effective
self-protection? Bill and Rosie might not carry a gun but they have all
the money needed to hire security. Their children’s parents are being
protected; the children in my home deserve that same benefit.

Which leads me to a time-honored attack used by statists to fight
certain things for which they have disdain, “It’s not fair to the
millions of ‘working’ Americans.”

This one usually works despite its obtuseness. After all, don’t most
all Americans work, even the rich? This ain’t no aristocracy with a
monied class or landed gentry, right? But they just go on year after
year justifying fascist, statist, laws and programs progressive,
graduated income taxes; death taxes, labor laws, environmental laws and
every other kind of socialistic doctrine by appealing to the envy of
“working Americans” (read: real Americans).

I believe sincere gun-grabbers would support the Second Amendment if
they knew that gun-control laws are inherently discriminatory to we of
the lower classes. I’ll go out on a limb and speculate that 90 percent
of all big-name entertainers, sports stars, news anchors, high level
politicians and bureaucrats along with generals, judges and big
corporate executives have security for which they or the taxpayers pay.
They live in the safest neighborhoods and apartment buildings often with
security guards and gates. They own lavish homes with sophisticated
security alarms and cameras. The well-heeled often have private (armed)
guards at home and their work. Who do you think buys most of the
tremendously expensive gun safes, criminals? I don’t begrudge these
people the safety they have been able to pay for with gobs of money and
positions of power. But why do so many of them covet the .38 owned by
the family living in the seediest part of L.A. or New York? Are the
lives of mere mortals like me and most Americans sort of … expendable?

All Americans must fight for the Second Amendment based on fairness
if nothing else.

The most vile and evil argument ever used goes like this, “Kids
are going to do it anyway, so educate them so they do it safely and
responsibly.”

As if. We all know this one refers to children and sex and by
necessary extension: birth control and abortion. How many children, how
many families have been brutalized by this big lie? They must
number in the millions and nearly all in the last 40 years. The logic
goes something like this, “Children are more sophisticated today. They
are exposed to many things earlier in their lives. They are maturing at
a younger age. Therefore they will have sex even though society and
their parents say, ‘Wait.’ We don’t want them to do it, but if they do,
we must do everything to protect their health and their lives. This
requires education and access to family planning.” Yeah, that reasoning
is vacuous but the real torturous gymnastics comes when they have to
explain why children today are considered mature and sophisticated when
they admit they have absolutely no self control. They’re mature enough
to know when sex is OK “for them.” They’re not mature enough to buy
their own condoms. They’re mature enough to be taught how to do it, but
they’re not mature enough to refrain from doing it. They’re mature
enough to do the “big nasty” but they’re not mature enough to have and
raise the baby which results. Whew! Sometimes I feel like my head is a
ping pong ball in China.

I think the liberal would feel much better about the gun thing
if they would just realize, children are going to want guns anyway so
we should just educate them so that they use the guns safely and
responsibly. In other words, what is good for the liberal geese
should be good for the constitutionalist gander.

So all liberals should support a bill requiring all children to be
trained in gun education. As we teach children to put condoms on
cucumbers in sex ed., they must learn to load guns in gun ed. They
should learn to SAFELY handle and shoot guns. If we really want to
protect these kids we should begin teaching them as early as possible
and I suppose we should distribute ammunition to the kids so they get
the most reliable ammunition available.

Just imagine the warm and fuzzy feeling every liberal will feel when
they jump the constitutional divide onto the side of the Second
Amendment. They will be personally responsible for eliminating fear and
distrust, protecting the children and working Americans and defeating
the forces of elitism in this great nation. God Bless America and the
liberals who fight to defend our Constitution!

Is it good to use the machinations of the statists in the defense of
truth and justice? I don’t think so, but exposing their hypocrisy and
stupidity sure is fun.