krystal-ball

I’ve often written about the anti-gun, anti-liberty mindset. As experience teaches, that attitude is most prevalent among most members of the political left. By way of initial disclaimer, I’ve also written that some who hold political views that generally place them firmly left of center are also gun owners, and to lesser or greater degrees, supporters of gun ownership and the Second Amendment. Such people should obviously be welcomed into the ranks of those that own, and enjoy the use of, firearms, and almost universally, they are. Yet, to the statist/progressive mind, gun owners are a seemingly monolithic block, a group of people with easily definable and identifiable characteristics. Among the most obvious of these is a barely concealed compulsion to use firearms in violent ways, particularly against those who don’t think in the same ways . . .

This compulsion is brought dangerously close to fruition by the mere ownership of firearms, which have a mystical power to influence their owners for ill. These members of a “gun culture” are obviously filled with hate–why else would they own guns?–and must long to harm or kill those with whom they disagree.

This kind of “thinking” about others is commonly called “projection.”

At The Federalist, Sean Davis recently wrote an article titled “Gun Owners Aren’t Hypocrites For Wanting To Protect Obama From Guns.” The article was occasioned by the recent revelations of instances of Keystone Kops-like lack of performance by the Secret Service. Many of those concerned about this appalling lack of competence are Republicans, Conservatives, and presumably, gun owners. This has caused not a few statists to cry foul. Why? Anyone that disagrees with President Obama’s policies and job performance must surely want him dead.

Davis reproduces a tweet from one “Joey Piazza” who wrote: “I’m sorry, if you say someone hates and is destroying America and you want to keep them safe, one of those two statements is a f***ing lie.”

Davis also mentions one Brian Beutler at The New Republic, whose recent article was titled “A Gun-Carrying GOP Congressman Is Outraged a Man With a Concealed Gun Got Near Obama.” Beutler refers to Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) who is concerned about an incident referenced by that article title. Beutler wrote: 

“The armed felon in the elevator represents a different level of failure. There appears to be widespread recognition of this fact in both the media and in Congress. That’s good, and important, but it’d be nicer still if elected gun enthusiasts thought through the logical implications of their completely warranted outrage.”

Beutler entirely misses the point, and the source of Chaffetz’s concern, and the concern of all Americans of good will, gun-owning or not:

“Chaffetz is appalled that USSS allowed a person to carry a concealed handgun around the president without conducting a background check, but supports legislation to make it significantly easier for people—many of whom come into lawful possession of firearms without undergoing background checks—to carry concealed weapons around you and me.”

Like all statists, Beutler obviously abhors the idea of law-abiding people bearing arms. The state–directed by an intellectual, cultural elite–must have an absolute monopoly on the use of force. Allowing lesser beings, including congressmen of the wrong party and mindset, to carry concealed weapons is unimaginably dangerous, particularly to a utopian statist order.

Rep. Chaffetz, and all rational Americans, are upset because an armed criminal with a concealed handgun, a man with a history of violence, a man behaving bizarrely, was allowed–by the Secret Service–to be within touching distance of the President of the United States in an elevator. The man was recording the President with a cell phone and refused to stop when directed by Secret Service agents. To Rep. Chaffetz and any rational gun-owning American, that–not the Second Amendment or concealed carry laws–is the problem.

There are no “logical implications” to be considered. Americans carrying concealed handguns are among the most carefully vetted and law-abiding people on the planet. They’re fingerprinted, photographed, and subject to intensive background checks. Their law-abiding status is therefore, to the rational, unsurprising.

While competent Secret Service agents are concerned about even armed local and state police officers being in close proximity to a POTUS, even they understand they pose nothing but the slightest potential danger. That was obviously not the case with the man in the elevator. The issue was an egregious security breach, an unforced error by the Secret Service that actually put the POTUS in jeopardy, not gun ownership.

Consider another example of this kind of “logic.” At MSNBC, Krystal Ball (whose parents apparently have a delightful sense of humor) and the more conventionally named Anne Thompson enlighten Americans with an article titled “How the NRA is making the Ebola crisis worse.”  How could the NRA–and by direct implication, members of the “gun culture”–have any connection with the Ebola virus? The NRA, and the US Senate–including Democrats–have opposed Mr. Obama’s nomination of one Dr. Vivek Murthy as Surgeon General, such opposition owing to Dr. Murthy’s absolute determination to treat firearm ownership as a public health danger, and to thereby attack liberty.

“As I reported previously, Murthy’s nomination has been held up by Republicans and a few red state Democrats due to this surprisingly controversial stance: He believes that guns can impact your health. Well, to be fair, this conservative coalition is not troubled by his stance, so much as they are fearful of the NRA, which decided to try to scuttle Murthy’s confirmation. The NRA wrote a strongly worded letter, Rand Paul put a hold on the nomination, and Red State Democrats begged Harry Reid to not force them to vote. It’s funny that the strongly worded letters of ordinary citizens don’t seem to have quite the same effect.

So thanks to NRA power and Senate cowardice, we are left with no surgeon general during a time when, we not only have Ebola arriving on our shores, but are also dealing with the mysterious Enterovirus, which is infecting and contributing to the deaths of children in the U.S.”

Ball and Thompson ignore certain “logical implications,” such as the fact that it is the CDC, not the Surgeon General, that is responsible for dealing with Ebola and similar potential epidemics. In addition, the Surgeon General is essentially an advisor to the President, a spokesperson of sorts. Even is there is no currently sitting Surgeon General, there are more than enough credible doctors able to educate the public should such education become necessary, and they can do it without directly attacking a fundamental, unalienable constitutional right at the expense of the legitimate practice of medicine.

For those tempted, I add this disclaimer: there are surely gun owners, members of that nebulous “gun culture” that occasionally say foolish things, or that might tweet what appears to be a desire to harm those with whom they disagree. I condemn such foolishness without qualification, as do all rational gun owners. I wish no harm to come to Mr. Obama, if for no reason other than that Joe “double barreled shotgun” Biden would become President. Lest anyone attack that little bit of irony, understand that I would wish no harm on either of these men, or anyone else, for that matter. I was merely employing irony, a form of humor.

Gun ownership and holding a sincere and serious desire that the President of the United States–any POTUS–be afforded the best and most effective security humanly available are related only in that no one is more aware of the potential danger of improperly used firearms, and no one is more concerned about firearm safety, than gun owners. Any failure of security resulting in harm to the President, his family, or anyone protected by the Secret Service, would be a national security disaster, harmful not only to America, but to the world. No sane person wants that.

I have little doubt that Mr. Obama and his policies are in part responsible for the currently debilitated state of the Secret Service.  Big government damages all it touches. I consider Mr. Obama to be the least prepared, least competent man to occupy the Oval Office in my lifetime and believe he is doing enormous damage not only to America, but to the world. I pray that we’ll be able to undo that damage, and that the cost in lives, fortunes, and relations between nations, will not be too great, yet I, a gun owner, a man that writes about firearms issues and fully supports the Second Amendment because it is the portion of the Constitution that makes the rest possible and viable, wish him no harm whatsoever.  My concerns are political, and in a representative republic, such matters are addressed through the political process, not violence.

I, and all gun-owning, liberty-supporting Americans, am capable of simultaneously holding many beliefs, which to some might seem contradictory. But there is no contradiction in owning firearms while intending no harm to anyone. In fact, gun owners, while many practice to defend their lives, the lives of those they love, and even innocent strangers, fervently hope they never have to harm anyone.

Wanting an effective Secret Service that’s not beholden to political correctness or the Disney World ethic of its recently resigned Director, is one of the “logical implications” of that hope.

Mike’s Home blog is Stately McDaniel Manor.

Recommended For You

48 Responses to Secret Service: The Logical Implications Of Gun Ownership

  1. I have a simple response now to people who say guns will make people kill each other during arguments etc etc.

    I ask, “how many people per day/week do you know who hit someone in the head with a chair or stabbed someone with a knife over an argument or a disagreement?”

    I get blank stares.

    Then I say, “a chair or a knife would be a weapon on-hand. If people are so quick to hurt others just if a weapon is available, why isn’t half the population in the hospital?”

    Heads explode.

    The projection. It’s real.

    • The most glaring contradiction I regularly see from the left/prog/libs, is their insistence that firearms are useless for defense, because all you have to do in response to violent crime is call 911 (in essence, requesting a person with a firearm).

      Then they always start in with their “but they are better trained” schtick, and I have to explain that much of their training consists of safely approaching and sorting out the good folks from the bad folks, while not being shot by either. The firearms training they receive is rather basic, and passing the cop pistol qualification course is rather easy, actually.

      • The most unsafe I’ve ever felt at a range was when there was a class of police recruits qualifying down the other side of range.

        • Same deal with MPs doing qualification. Some can shoot…others get put on desk watch. Even the military can have a Farva or two. “Don’t call me Radio, 91!”
          As for the Secret Service? They should be ashamed over their recent publicity and “evil shenanigans.” It is truly a disgrace on display by some of their members and unfortunately casts the rest in a bad light.

      • Its very simple to respond to the 911 argument.
        No matter where you live, cops will not arrive in time to save your life. That’s if you just so happen to have the 20 seconds required to call 911, and the 15-20 minutes to wait for cops to show up.

        If you live in a big city, your time spent waiting for the cops to arrive could range from 5 minutes (the absolute fastest time possible), to a half an hour, or your call might be dropped/ignored. It happens.

        If someone tries to stab you and take your wallet, you wont have 20 seconds to call the cops, let alone the time to wait for them to arrive. You might as well be calling for an ambulance because that’s all you are gonna get.

    • You lose the argument as soon as you attempt to make one so:
      To anti-gunners STFU nobody asked you what you thought was “safe”/”safer” your requests to disarm are assumed to be your lame attempts to subjugate your fellow man and take over the world.

      The problem with the SS is the president and his WHEEEEE look at me (even a community organizer can do this job) attitude with everything.

      The problem with the president is the plurality (likely 110% of the eligible voters in their respective districts) of the population who voted for him, I hope you all are well served (in hell, with a side dish).

      • Engrish this is?

        I are knowing what and whatever arguments flowing coherently rapidly. Earthquake ground rebut flying in passionate writing.

        • Good English far good understand fully.

          Make many tree points further passionate understanding.

          Totem the firearms with much gesticulating!

  2. What we have is the psychological problem of confusing ability with intent. An unarmed maniac cannot be in the company of the POTUS. An armed man of peaceful nature certainly can, and many of them on the government payroll do every day .

  3. Anti-gunners generally fall into 3 categories:

    1. Those who fear guns, gun owners, gun powder, gun pictures…you get the idea…for whatever reason. They typically cannot rationally explain this fear and feed off of the emotional drivel spoon-fed to them by a compliant media.
    2. Those who are ignorant. Many people simply don’t care about guns one way or another and, when confronted with gun control questions, answer what they’ve been told or feel not really knowing or understanding the truth or facts.
    3. Those with an agenda…they want civilian ownership of guns banned. Right know, they like to say the ‘support’ legitimate second amendment pursuits such as hunting and target shooting. Soon, they will say that no one needs a gun…we have the police/FBI/CIA/government to keep us safe. Really, they are all about control and know that, as long as America is armed, their agenda is in jeopardy.

    We have a fighting chance to influence or educate groups 1 and 2. Group 3 is the true enemy of freedom. This is the group you can’t ignore.

  4. In general, the “left” believes that any dissenting viewpoint or criticism is equal to an attack. You either line up as ordered, or you are out-of-order. How dare someone go against the “collective” Borg thinking. How dare you have a different view point. I reject your ideas and replace them with my own which you must obey or else.

    As far as the Surgeon General, “NOTHING” is stopping Obama from picking someone else. This has been typical of this president, it is politics first, the country second. If that position was so important, how about find someone else? Nope! and he can count on the Praetorian Guard media to protect the President instead of asking him to find someone more accepting by both political parties.

    While I wish him no harm, I do wish he would remember that he is not solely the president of 50% of the nation that voted for him, but the president to all and he was not elected as dictator. So, instead about worrying about his next tee time, how about work with everyone to come up with some solutions instead of simply working with a “phone and a pen”. He is often more petulant child than adult.

  5. And what about Group 4? You know, the paid whores of Group 3 who are doing this work (For the Children(TM)) in between other paid gigs b/c they were bored being “stay at home” moms?

  6. Yes, most of us who disapprove of the way Obama does his job don’t want to see violence done to him because we find violence distasteful. Many of us also respect rule of law, and would like to see him removed through legal channels or not at all.

    But there is also this: No matter how much you might want the current POTUS out of office, having him assassinated simply isn’t good for the country. Causes chaos, makes us look weak, divided.

    For people who care more about their agenda than they do their country, this perspective would probably be difficult to understand. So, to the extent that this nonsense about how we are inconsistent if we want the sitting POTUS well protected is sincere, I fully understand how they might be confused.

    • And NO ONE, however desperate, wans to see Crazy Joe Biden living at 1600 Penn Ave. The ONLY smart move Obumer has made was to made Biden VP.

      • tdi- no kidding. Biden is the SINGLE most important argument against “Impeach Obama”, which I’d otherwise say is long overdue.

        Lets just hope the Secret Service does a MUCH better job for the next two years.

        Any DC insider gouge on the new Director?

        • Not my former area of the government but I have “pkeasant” interaction with new NGA director Robert Cardillo.

      • No one wants Joe Biden in charge of anything. He is a despicable human being that nobody likes. Also, the longer Obama is president, the more people swing permanently our way. Obama is waking up We The People better than the British rulers did in the 1770s. We just need to swing the Senate away from the left so we can slow down the rate of damage to our republic.

      • President Biden. Makes me shudder to think about it.

        However, he really might not be as bad as Obama. For one thing, I don’t think Val Jarret would have nearly as much influence if Biden was in charge. I can’t imagine how that would be a bad thing. We might shift back toward normal beltway politics. Bad as that is, it’s a damn sight better than Chicago-commie style crap.

        And if he’s grossly incompetent? Would it really be any worse than it is now? Obama might be smart enough to be effective (though I’ve seen no evidence of that), but if he systematically, reliably makes choices that are against American’s best interests, how could slow Joe do much worse?

        Again, I hope we don’t have to find out. But six years in, I can’t imagine how any president could be a significant step down from Obama.

    • I agree, there should be no one wanting any president dead. If we wanted to stop philosophizing from our armchairs, it might dawn on us that the midterm election is just 3 weeks away AND that taking the Senate away from the Democrats would pretty much cancel Obama and the whole Democrat gun control agenda. It’s been nearly two years and I think by now we have a pretty good idea about how the Democrats and their “gun free” followers think and work. It’s also about time we got fed up with talking and did a little something about getting as many Democrats out of government as possible. Why not join the NRA’s “Trigger the Vote” campaign for starters?? Or are we too busy to do anything which would actually work?

  7. A liberal,left gun owner is a contradiction and an obvious handy cap. So what way do the vote? For rights or against them. The left is just messed up no matter how you slice it!!!

  8. Regarding the whole Surgeon General issue: it is a lie by MSNBC. Yes, the NRA did shoot down that gun grabbing political activist with no medical experience outside of training.

    However, we do possess a Surgeon General. His name is Rear Admiral (RADM) Boris D. Lushniak, M.D., M.P.H. He is the acting Surgeon General.

    http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/about/biographies/biosg.html

    So, MSNBC is yet again telling lies.

  9. Krystal Ball?

    I’m not listening to anything that anyone with a porn star/stripper name has to say.

    The punch line? It took two of those genius college girls to come up with their ridiculous article linking Ebola to the NRA. Morons.

    No shits given.

  10. What concerns me about the Secret Service fiascoes, is
    figuring out how much is incompetence and how much
    could be on purpose. Quite frankly the the mere notion
    that the Secret Service is turning into a Praetorian Guard
    is appalling and scary. For those who have not been
    taught ancient history (seriously, private school or
    home-school people) , the Praetorian Guard protected
    the Roman Emperor. They also eventually turned out to
    be the group a politician needed complete control of to
    not only become emperor but stay alive.

    • You have got to be kidding. An average big city SWAT team could take out the Secret Service detail. They are hardly an elite guard force.

      • You misunderstand. When the Praetorian Guard wanted
        an emperor dead, many times all that happened was a
        “lapse” in security. Given the number of incidents the
        Secret Service has had, I don’t think questioning their
        capability OR their sense of duty is out of line.

  11. Look at that crazy twinkle in her eye… I love me some crazy women, everyone knows they’re great in the sa… Kitchen, I mean kitchen.

  12. “The man was recording the President with a cell phone and refused to stop when directed by Secret Service agents. To Rep. Chaffetz and any rational gun-owning American, that–not the Second Amendment or concealed carry laws–is the problem.”

    OMG! Somebody other than the official White House Photographer pointed a camera at the President! OMG!!!

    Or, alternately: OMG! Somebody engaged in First Amendment protected activity refused to stop when directed by government employed anti-Constitution thugs! OMG!

  13. I read this little gem somewhere but I’ve forgotten where. If gun owners are as violent as the pro-gun control crowd think we are then there would be no pro-gun control crowd.

  14. Mike McDaniel- great article. And I agree with RetLEO about the different types of liberals/progtards.
    Its the third group, that knows very well what they are doing that scare me- the tactics haven’t changed since Lenin’s quote- “you have to break a few eggs to break an omelette”,

    and their self-serving “morality”, again, coming from the “ends justifies the means” Nazi mentality
    has only gotten more widespread among the wacko left –

    FakeBookers like Lisa Hunsicker advocating shooting Dean in the back,
    and the SWATTER mentality seem to be spreading.

    Whats more of a concern is there is NO mention of the trend by the StateRunMedia, or disavowal by the gun-grabbers, like MDA. The silence is deafening, and damning.

  15. Cut to the chase: A government is the most dangerous threat to man’s rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims.

    The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.

    And lets stop calling them ‘liberals” – they are all Democrats and that’s where they get their authority and power: the Democratic Party.

    Reduce the number of democrats holding office and you take away the power of those who would control you through the power of the state.

  16. Perhaps one single person should not have the power over so many that the their death would be sought after for the perpose of some sort of policy change. If you look at the actual responsibility of the president it is to execute laws put in place by congress and agreed to by himself or previous presidents. The job should be innocuous, like how we view the position of vice president. They should not be revered for simply being politically savvy enough to be elected.

  17. Gun ownership is a civil right. Opposition to civil rights puts the holder of that opinion into a category of people who are both a minority and outcasts within American civil society. They have a right to hold that opinion, but civilized society has a right and an obligation to marginalize and ostracize them.

  18. “By way of initial disclaimer, I’ve also written that some who hold political views that generally place them firmly left of center are also gun owners, and to lesser or greater degrees, supporters of gun ownership and the Second Amendment”

    True Mike. Count me as one of your Lefty allies.

    I am a civil libertarian and I take a fairly libertarian approach to many social issues. On economics, my sympathy lies with workers and I am not a fan of corporate capitalism. But I also favor new strategies–such as a basic income–that could hack away at our massive welfare bureaucracy.

    So why do I part ways with much of the Left on guns? Well, I don’t really see guns as a Left or Right issue. The right to self-defense should be a pretty non-partisan affair. Why don’t I put all my faith in the armed sectors of the state like the nice folks at MSNBC? Marx viewed the state as a tool of the ruling class and I find it pretty hard to dispute that. So why the hell would I want to put all of the guns in the hands of the state?

    Let me conclude by saying that reflexively anti-gun Lefties are acting like bourgeois liberals, not radicals.

    • “Lefties are acting like bourgeois liberals.” – Well, that too. But my observation going all the way back to the late 1960s is that anti-gun “lefties” also display a consistent pattern or inordinate fear of “superior” force in their daily lives and in their personal histories. “The Root” if you will, seems to have risen out of the anti-war movement and out of understandable outrage over the political assassinations of that time.

      I too think of myself as a libertarian. So I see both Democrats and Republicans practicing dishonesty WHILE each of them recruits from “interest groups” like the chambers of commerce crowd and the anti-gun crowd. I believe the Democrat politicians appear to be anti-gun when they are really just “serving the interest” of anti-gun individuals who fixate on two personal fantasies.

      Those individuals: consistently have two fantasies. Fantasy One is that they want SO MUCH to live free of any kind of threat or challenge. Fantasy Two is that: guns give those who possess them the ability to threaten Fantasy One. And key to all this: these individuals can be shown to have decided they on their own are helpless and need government to protect them. The idea of another man or woman defending them (if they’re not police officers) makes them feel embarrassment and then resentment. They see they come out looking like sissies and cowards by comparison, They DON’T LIKE being rescued by their fellow human beings who are ‘ordinary citizens” like they are. Thus do we see them proclaim, “I don’t need a gun…” — making it a badge of superiority (or trying to).

      So if we want to end the anti-gun-owner culture and legal powers: we have to reduce the Democratic Party to impotence by using counter culture and the vote.

      • “…we have to reduce the Democratic Party to impotence by using counter culture and the vote.”

        It’s amazing how the aging hippies and their intellectual progeny who run the government view themselves as fighting the establishment. They aren’t fighting the man. They ARE the man, and very heavy-handed about it. I saw a comment on the daily kos a few months ago to the effect of “Hey, is this starting to feel just a bit Stalinistic to anyone else?” I didn’t hang around to see if he was shouted down, though I’d be surprised if the comment lasted very long.

  19. Collectivists Love Guns
    Marxists Love Guns
    Communists Love Guns
    Leftists Love Guns
    Socialists Love Guns
    Jihadists Love Guns
    But most of all they Love Defenseless Victims

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *