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.