Bob Herbert, New York Times Columnist and advocate of a government monopoly of force.
A moment of clarity over Milo's Sweet Tea and Diet Mountain Dew.
I was sitting in the back room of a gun store here in Alabama the other day, chatting with a long time friend about Bob Herbert's latest NYT column, A Threat We Can’t Ignore over drinks. He had a Milo's Sweet Tea and I had a Diet Mountain Dew.
A call for more gun control, it began with this:
Even with the murders that have already occurred, Americans are not paying enough attention to the frightening connection between the right-wing hate-mongers who continue to slither among us and the gun crazies who believe a well-aimed bullet is the ticket to all their dreams.
Then, had this right about the middle:
There is no Obama gun ban on the way. . . . What’s important to grasp here is that this madness has nothing to do with hunting, which the politicians always claim to be defending, and everything to do with the use of firearms to resist policies and lawful government actions that some gun owners don’t like.
Herbert then concluded:
Gun craziness of all kinds, including the passage of local laws making it easier to own and conceal weapons, is on the rise. . . It might be wise to pay closer attention than we’ve been paying. The first step should be to bring additional gun control back into the policy mix.
"Gun crazies." "Slither(ing) among us." Lumping ordinary American gun owners in with National Socialist (read collectivist) terrorists so that we can all be repressed. And note -- Herbert thinks we're paranoid for thinking Obama is going to give us more gun control. His solution? Why, more gun control, of course.
My friend sighed, took off his glasses and rubbed his eyes. We're all older than we were in the 90s the last time this kind of stuff was rolling out. We're older, wiser and sadder, I think, than we were then. No less determined, but we've been here before.
"You know something, Mike?" he asked in sadness and quiet discovery. "I just realized something. All this time I thought it was our guns they hated, but that's not it. They don't hate our guns. They hate US. You and me. We're free individuals and they can't stand it."
I could only agree. However, there was one thing Herbert wrote with which I agreed.
"This . . . has . . . everything to do with the use of firearms to resist policies and lawful government actions that some gun owners don’t like."
Or, to put it the other way round, this has everything to do with the government being able to force compliance from citizens who desire to retain their property and liberty contrary to the wishes of Herbert and his friends. Just as after Heller, when we began to hear calls from the victim disarmament crowd about repealing the Second Amendment, we now hear demands for the codification of a government monopoly on violence.
That's what this whole thing about "sporting use" is all about. Other than PETA, the collectivists don't really care if poor little Bambi ends up in somebody's pot. Heck, even Herman Goering was a great white Aryan hunter. What they object to is not necessarily the firearm, but the combination of a firearm and the hands of somebody trained and willing to use it to defend his liberty. That's what scares the crap out of them.
So my friend is right. At the end of the day, Herbert and his ilk don't hate firearms. Firearms in the hands of the government which can be used to bully us into compliance are perfectly OK with them. What they really hate, or I should say, who they really hate, are free people, individuals, armed citizens who insist on their rights to liberty and property and have the ability to maintain them against government tyranny.
Let us postulate that they get their way. Of course they won't, not without a civil war. But let us say that they do. Now, at a wave of Bob Herbert's magic wand, all the law-abiding are disarmed. The government is not. The criminals are not, because, after all, they're criminals. The police cannot be everywhere at once, not even close, so this government monopoly of force becomes a government and criminal duopoly of force. The law-abiding are now, ipso facto, all potential victims. They are not citizens reponsible for their own defense; they are serfs, slaves, unable to effectively resist either the government or the criminals.
This is Bob Herbert's perfect world. It is ironic that African Americans like Herbert, Jesse Jackson and Gene Robinson would embrace this victimhood. The veterans of the Deacons for Defense and Justice who guarded civil rights advocates like Martin Luther King, Jr. with their military pattern firearms and their lives against Klan violence would, I am sure, call them "Uncle Toms" working on the government's plantation. And why wouldn't they?
Image from "No Guns For Negroes."
(I urge everyone to get a copy of JPFO's latest video, No Guns For Negroes, which was produced in concert with the Congress of Racial Equality's Chicago branch with the assistance of its Chairman, Ralph W. Conner. You can get a DVD of this solidly researched documentary by sending a $25.00 or greater donation to CORE at P.O. Box 2015, Chicago, Illinois 60690-2015. Their email is: email@example.com. Or, you can buy it on-line from JPFO by going to www.jpfo.org.)
By carrying their firearms concealed (and remember, this was in violation of the law back then), that would make the Deacons "gun crazies" in Herbert's alternate universe. So you see, this is not about race, except that the first gun control laws were designed to keep guns out of the hands of slaves and free blacks. No, it is about hate. Masters, the people who seek to run nations like plantations, hate free men and women with firearms. Uncle Toms hate them too, for we remind them that they are, in fact, Uncle Toms instead of free individuals.
Deacons for Defense and Justice.
Either you trust the people, as the Founders did, or you don't. The advocates of a government monopoly of violence, even defensive violence, are in the end all collectivists of different stripes. All tyrannical regimes insist upon a government monopoly of violence -- Nazis, Communists and now, Bob Herbert and his friends.
For our part, we don't hate them. We simply wish to be left alone. But here's the rub. We may not hate them, but if they force us into conflict by further predations on our property and liberty, our not hating them will not keep us from killing them in righteous self defense.
And THAT is why they hate us. That is why they libel us by lumping us in with collectivist terrorists.
Because they fear us.
They fear that we, the heretofore law-abiding armed citizenry of the United States, of all races, creeds and colors, will be able to resist when the time comes for them to shove their tyrannical ideas down our throats.
And you know what?
They should be afraid.
They should, in fact, leave us the hell alone.
When these folks start talking about "lawful government action" it's always helpful to remember that being Jewish in Nazi Germany was illegal, that persecuting and killing Jews was official public policy, and therefore "lawful government action".
Well said. Thanks!
"At the end of the day, Herbert and his ilk don't hate firearms. Firearms in the hands of the government which can be used to bully us into compliance are perfectly OK with them."
Or, more succinctly: They don't hate guns; they hate OUR guns.
Mike I salute your restraint. I doubt our friend David Codrea could have covered this without a gratuitous Star Trek reference...
"...notorious for his rigid and limited patterns of thought..."
"Herbert! Herbert! Herbert!"
Ya gotta admit, it fits...
More and more I am of the opinion that it really doesn't matter left or right Rep or Dem. What matters is freedom vs control. Some folks simply cannot abide the thought that other folks are out there making up their own minds and living their lives without the "wisdom and guidance" of their betters. They lust after a strict tightly controlled society and funny thing they always imagine themselves in the driver's seat. They hate us because we will not come to heel like good doggies to the crack of their whips.
In a fair and honest society such folks can simply be ignored. It's even kind of fun to watch them stroke out as they rail and demand that we conform while we all just go about our business and blow them off. But on occasion they lie and cheat themselves into positions of power such that they can no longer be ignored. It's at that point that we freedom loving types must rise up and slap them down. I think we're just about to that point, or maybe well past it and we've just been to easy going to notice.
"What’s important to grasp here is that this madness has nothing to do with hunting, which the politicians always claim to be defending, and everything to do with the use of firearms to resist policies and lawful government actions that some gun owners don’t like."
Hmmm, what was that fellas name Tom something... Oh YEAH! Thomas. Jefferson.
It is always the same with these liberal collectivists - first sully the names of free men and woman, or whoever they are trying to destroy...lump them together with the worst elements of their own kind (ie: the terrorists, the murderers, etc.) and then call for laws against this group. It is what Hitler did, it is what all liberals do. They first go after our ability to defend ourselves.
Liberalism as we define it today, is not just a mental disorder as Michael Savage calls it, no - it is wickedness, it is evil, it is the desire for death.
Well, I am a free man, and I love my life - and I will fight to the death to protect it and those whom I love against the perversion that is liberal collectivism.
Awesome Post as usual! I will ping, track back and all the rest to my blog "Big Flush Toilet". (www.bigflushtoilet.com)
David T. McKee
I continue to explain to people I know that freedom and liberty lovers are nothing more than a fat old rattlesnake that is minding its own business. Totally agree that we want to be left alone. We're rattling and still trying to be left alone. But if you continue to poke at us, pick us up or harass us, you're going to meet the fangs and poison.
"...becomes a government and criminal duopoly of force."
No, it's still a monopoly ;-)
Great post as always.
I do think that their fear of us and our guns means they know they have not won yet.
Government policies that violate the constitution are not lawful no matter what herbert and his ilk think.
Post a Comment