brietbart.com reports that Donald Trump has called for Americans to bear arms to increase security in the United States. His statement reads as follows . . .
Carrying a weapon is not always feasible or appropriate. However, given the increased tensions that are the result of continued, escalating terrorism around the world, more legitimately armed individuals on the streets is a positive outcome. Each permit holder must make the decision to carry or not carry. I will carry more often than I have in the past, and I am sure other concealed permit holders will do the same. Do we have an obligation to carry? The answer is “yes,” but we must do it in such a way as to raise serious doubts in the minds of those who might be considering violence in America. Deterring violence is far better than dealing with the aftermath of an act of terror. Less blood, more security. That is what will make America great again.
Donald Trump shows that he understands reality better than most politicians. This continues his breakthrough strategy of ignoring the censorship imposed by the media cartel in the name of political correctness. The concept of the citizenry being armed to defend against threats is as old and as obvious as mankind. Only in the last hundred years, with the rise of “progressivism,” has the bizarre idea that people are safer when disarmed been marketed to the public as a sane concept.
In Europe, people carried arms all over the continent before World War I. In the British empire, British subjects had the right to keep and carry arms. It was only following the war that elites all around the world marketed the idea that the public would be “safer” without guns. The elites feared an overthrow of their established order, believing that they would be safer if the public were disarmed. That’s how British elites imposed gun control by deception.
The idea of disarming citizens in the United States started in the South where permit systems were designed to keep blacks, who had not been considered citizens, disarmed. The laws were never meant to disarm the majority of the populace. That strategy backfired, as more and more “progressives” were elected, and started to apply those prohibitions to all.
The concept was promoted by the increasing power of the progressive movement, a movement that rested on the theory that the majority of the people were too stupid to govern themselves, that the consent of the governed must be manufactured by the elite, particularly those who controlled mass media.
So-called progressives spread the concept to states outside the South. In New York, with the infamous Sullivan Law, meant to protect the corrupt Tammany Hall gang, and California, where elites wanted to keep Hispanics and Chinese minorities disarmed and under control. Notably, neither New York or California have a state constitutional protection of the right to keep and bear arms. They are two of only six states that lack such protection.
The progressive media cartel, formed by the early newspaper chains and the Associated Press, nurtured and strengthened by the FCC, censorship during WWII, and the leftist takeover of the journalism schools and the networks in the 1960’s, pushed the notion of citizen disarmament relentlessly. But the media cartel no longer has the ability to control the flow of information. It has been superseded by technological advances, just as it was made possible by the rise of the mass media. It can no longer prop up the absurd notion that people are safer when they are disarmed.
The last shreds of disinformation used to create that illusion have disintegrated with the victories of concealed carry activists across the United States. Those advances forced the Supreme Court to uphold the Second Amendment. In practical terms, it has shown that armed citizens are more law biding than the average police officer.
Donald Trump is speaking a truth that cannot be denied. Long ago, before the media cartel started its incessant civilian disarmament propaganda campaign, Niccolo Machiavelli, the archetypal scholar of power politics, put it this way:
There is no comparison whatever between an armed and disarmed man; it is not reasonable to suppose that one who is armed will obey willingly one who is unarmed; or that any unarmed man will remain safe…. – The Prince, 1537
Trump, leading by example, is becoming the armed leader a free people can respect. Not long ago, we learned, unsurprisingly, that Ronald Reagan was routinely armed as well.
Can anyone imagine the current “progressive” leadership having the sense to extol an armed citizenry as one of the great defensive resources of the Republic? Can anyone imagine one of the “progressive” candidates leading by example? In a recent debate, all three Democrat candidates fell over themselves, trying to find ways that they could disarm Americans through deceit.
That horse has left the stable.
Trump has shown that he trusts the American people. Progressives show that they fear and distrust the people, who they believe are too stupid to govern themselves.
©2015 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.