Being careful what you wish for

I’m gonna be brutally honest here about something even though this may work against the purpose of this website. We run this site with the intent of convincing people that our arguments with regard to the right to keep and bear arms are, in fact, the correct ones. However, insulting people isn’t a good form of persuasion, no matter how right you are. That being said, I would like to point out that those wishing to disarm the American people are not the sharpest knives in the drawer.

They say that they only want to save lives. But, they are ignoring the admonition “Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.”

As Anthony Canales notes, there are places in political and social discourse where there is no going back

If one were to ask African-Americans about how they would feel about a repeal of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, at the very least they would likely say that there is no going back to the days of Jim Crow and discrimination. In fact, any real attempt to re-impose the kinds of political rule that resulted in events like the Tulsa Riot of 1921 would probably be met with resistance, likely even violent resistance.

And if one were to ask the gay community about how they would feel about a repeal of reforms and court rulings that would likely mean a return to “pre-Stonewall” discrimination, they too would probably say that there is no going back on the civil rights gains by LGBT citizens in the United States. As proven in the past, resistance up to violent action would be the result of any attempt by the governing elite to deny gays the rights they have fought so hard for.

When it comes to these two core constituencies of theirs, the American Left understands that there is no going back for them. They understand that violence would result from any attempt to undo the gains these groups have won. They understand just how much these gains mean to these groups. And yet, the Left seems shocked that American gun owners not only refuse to go along with plans to disarm them, but that they would violently resist such plans.

But “shocked” isn’t the right word, is it? That implies some level of acceptance that they clearly do not have. Quite to the contrary, they refuse to see this at all and insist upon stupidly charging ahead with civilian disarmament anyway. And now, with the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and Obama’s pick to replace him, they see their wishes finally coming true. Stroke of a pen, Law of the land. All of the bad, bad guns will just go away. Right? Remember what we said about being careful about what you wish for?

They say they only want to save lives. So riddle me this: How does fomenting armed rebellion and violence achieve that end?

There is no going back.

Be First to Comment

Leave a Reply