Liberals hate guns. This statement should be qualified. It isn’t that leftists, Democrats, and libs of every stripe hate all guns. Specifically, they hate guns in the hands of conservatives, Republicans, Christians and libertarians. They hate guns possessed by men and women formerly of the U.S. military. They hate guns used to defend homes. They hate guns used to prevent rape.
Liberals hate guns that might be used to oppose their power-mad whims, their cradle-to-grave schemes for controlling every facet of your waking life. The old saying goes that the armed man is a citizen, while the unarmed man is a subject. Liberals hate citizens and adore subjects, for the latter are but a few meters of slippery slope removed from becoming serfs and slaves.
By contrast, liberals adore violence. They enjoy threatening the lives of policemen; they delight in intimidating, harassing and destroying the lives and livelihoods of any who speak out against them. The idea of forcing their enemies to obey them, the notion of bending to their wills all those benighted fools not swayed by liberals’ presumed enlightenment, thrills and excites them. In the Democrats’ utopia, it isn’t that guns – the most effective technology of self-defense yet invented – have been made to disappear. Rather, their possession is reserved for agents of the progressive state … and to those few liberal elites whose lives are deemed worth protecting (as opposed to the majority of mere mortals dumbly voting to keep Democrat tyrants in office).
No less prominent an administration figure than Attorney General Eric Holder – whose palpable, throbbing racism led him to forego charging armed, epithet-spewing Black Panthers bullying white voters, but who believes voter ID to prevent fraudulent ballots is racism and vote suppression – has been caught admitting what liberals think of guns. Holder unabashedly asserts that we should “brainwash” our children, equating guns with vice, pursuing a model not unlike the vilification of tobacco products.
Holder, who still claims he knew little or nothing about your government “walking” illegal guns to Mexico, has more blood on his hands than any member of the NRA does or has. Yet he, like most “progressives,” presumes to tell you, not just what you can own or how much your life is worth, but what you should think about the issue. It isn’t enough that he and his fellow libs would rob you of your constitutionally protected right to defend yourself. No, they want to make sure you are marginalized for believing you possess this right – and they want to turn your children into little wide-eyed Hitler youth, ready to inform their doctors and teachers that Daddy owns firearms.
It is against this backdrop of liberal brainwashing and presumption that media outcry over Trayvon Martin has been conducted. When Martin, a black teenager, was shot by a white “Neighborhood Watch captain,” George Zimmerman, Zimmerman claimed self-defense. Subsequent over-analysis of a situation about which few pundits know much – the only direct witnesses to the event are Zimmerman and the late Trayvon Martin – has been infuriating in its transparency and astounding in its racism.
As of this writing, the shooter, Zimmerman, has not been charged. Demonstrators, lawmakers and media figures have been screaming for his arrest. Black racist groups want to find him and kidnap him. Biased “news” articles, dedicated to portraying Zimmerman as a paranoid vigilante constantly pestering police about imagined crimes, have constructed the progressives’ preferred straw man and hung Zimmerman’s name around its neck. Frustrated reporters, desperate to conduct some kind of affected investigative journalism, have gone so far as to speculate that Zimmerman said something in his call to 911 that almost kind-of sort-of sounds like “coons.”
Some of the same people standing up and proclaiming to news cameras that they “know in their hearts” that Zimmerman is a murderer probably also believe that O.J. Simpson still searches for his ex-wife’s killers. The myth that citizens with guns will inevitably become ravening vigilantes is the popular culture party line the progressives are pushing. A man with a gun on his hip, accustomed to coping and safeguarding his home and family, is less likely to accept a Democrat’s hand in his pocket. For this reason, all gun owners must be portrayed as bloodthirsty Klansman just itching for an excuse to put a bullet in a black man.
What is most telling about these demands for Zimmerman’s arrest (not to mention those who seem to have psychic knowledge of his intent) is how closely they mirror reaction to the Roderick Scott trial. Scott, like Zimmerman, shot a boy. Scott, like Zimmerman, was alone at the time of the incident. Scott, like Zimmerman, was protecting (or believed he was protecting) his neighborhood and himself. Scott, like Zimmerman, was condemned as a vigilante who murdered a child.
Scott, unlike Zimmerman, is a black man – who was acquitted in the shooting death of a white teenager.
The common denominator in all discussion of these incidents is progressives’ obsession over two things: race and guns. To the liberal, race is always a factor and always a motivator. To the Democrat, when a man with lighter or darker skin shoots you, he must have hate in his heart. To the progressive, that man could not have committed his crime were it not for the gun in his possession. To the leftist, that firearm is as guilty, if not more so, than the man who held the weapon and pulled its trigger. This is the libs’ hatred of guns when used to protect individuals. Statists abhor that protection.
We can’t know if Zimmerman – or Roderick Scott, for that matter – were motivated by hate, fear, or just cause. We weren’t there. We can only hope our legal system, to which we are all party, makes some determination. We must then live with the decision reached. Often, this is not easy. If progressives are allowed to keep brainwashing us with their sick, twisted notions about force, firearms and self-defense, it will only become more difficult.
