By Roger Katz
The Democrat Party is in a bind. This is the inference to be drawn after the first two recently aired debates. And no less a source of radical left, marxist hate-filled proselytizing and propaganda-filled garbage than The New York Times recognizes this indisputable fact; and, recognizing it, laments it, but for a very specific reason–one that may not be apparent to the casual reader.
In two recent stories — two Times reporters in a news story, and one columnist in an op-ed — expressed concern, even consternation over the style, tone and mood of the two recent debates.
Several of the presidential hopefuls were falling all over themselves in their call for radical change for the nation – including radical restrictions on gun rights and the Second Amendment. Their exuberance was on clear display for all to see.
In an article titled, Liberal Democrats Ruled the Debates. Will Moderates Regain Their Voices?, the Times reporters made this comment in the opening paragraph of their news account:
“The Democratic debates this past week provided the clearest evidence yet that many of the leading presidential candidates are breaking with the incremental politics of the Clinton and Obama eras, and are embracing seeping liberal policy changes on some of the most charged public issues in American life, even at the risk of a political backlash.”
And in his op-ed, A Wretched Start for Democrats, columnist Brett Stephens, seemingly grudgingly acknowledges that the Democrat Party agenda is well beyond the pale of anything acceptable to the vast majority of Americans:
“In this week’s Democratic debates, it wasn’t just individual candidates who presented themselves to the public. It was also the party itself. What conclusions should ordinary people draw about what Democrats stand for, other than a thunderous repudiation of Donald Trump, and how they see America, other than as a land of unscrupulous profiteers and hapless victims?
Here’s what: a party that makes too many Americans feel like strangers in their own country. A party that puts more of its faith, and invests most of its efforts, in them instead of us.
They speak Spanish. We don’t. They are not U.S. citizens or legal residents. We are. They broke the rules to get into this country. We didn’t. They pay few or no taxes. We already pay most of those taxes. They willingly got themselves into debt. We’re asked to write it off. They don’t pay the premiums for private health insurance. We’re supposed to give up ours in exchange for some V.A.-type nightmare. They didn’t start enterprises that create employment and drive innovation. We’re expected to join the candidates in demonizing the job-creators, breaking up their businesses and taxing them to the hilt.”
Stephens’ account of the radical left agenda hits the mark. What he says concerning the fears of those whom he refers to as “ordinary Americans” isn’t hyperbole.
What the Times finds objectionable, apparently, is that the Democrat Party candidates have, for the first time, in the debates, articulated their message directly, forcefully, and maybe a little too clearly for a substantial portion of the electorate.
What people like Stephens, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, and now former presidential candidate Rep. Eric Swalwell fear most is an armed citizenry that, through its very existence, would fight to prevent and would be fully capable of preventing a Marxist-collectivist takeover of this country. Thus, they seek to disarm the public.
Recall that Cuomo and his henchmen were the architects of the New York SAFE Act that places a ban on the very firearms with which the American people can most effectively ward off tyranny. And recall Swalwell’s intention to confiscate all semi-automatic firearms in the hands of law-abiding, rational, average Americans.
The Times’ columnist Stephens has twice called for repeal of the Second Amendment. In an October 5, 2017 Times column, Stephens didn’t mince words as he went about viciously attacking guns and gun ownership, making clear what it is he wants.
He said, in part:
“I have never understood the conservative fetish for the Second Amendment. . . . the more closely one looks at what passes for ‘common sense’ gun laws, the more feckless they appear. Americans who claim to be outraged by gun crimes should want to do something more than tinker at the margins of a legal regime that most of the developed world rightly considers nuts. They should want to change it fundamentally and permanently.
There is only one way to do this: Repeal the Second Amendment.”
Just in case Americans didn’t get the message in Stephen’s first op-ed, he reiterated the message in a column titled, To Repeat: Repeal the Second Amendment that was published after the Parkland High School tragedy.
Stephens’ argument against gun ownership and possession is nothing new. Americans have heard the same tiresome message countless times before, albeit delivered with more sense of urgency and ferocity, immediately after a tragedy involving firearms in the hands of psychotic or psychopathic killers. Namely that society must get rid of its guns.
But Americans who wish to own and possess firearms need not fear, because it isn’t the intention of Stephens or Cuomo or Swalwell or any of the other anti-gun elements in our nation to take away all guns from citizens. They just want to take away some of them–and they want to add a little more scrutiny on those who really wish to possess them.
Eventually, of course, their intention is to confiscate all firearms, so that no civilian may legally own or possess one without first obtaining a license, issued by the appropriate government authority. That would effectively repeal the Second Amendment, as gun ownership and possession would then be a mere privilege.
Americans’ individual liberty, autonomy and self-determination comes to an end once government restrains the right of the people to keep and bear arms. That is not conjecture. That is ice-cold fact.
This article was originally published at arbalestquarrel.com and is reprinted here with permission.