I’ve got a phone number for them
The women of this country learned long ago, those without swords can still die upon them. — Eowyn, The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (movie quote)
They’ve been trying to get ‘er done for some time. Everything we see in the media right now are just the new tactics. The attacks on the NRA seem pointless, but I don’t think the Organized Left cares about taking down the NRA. Not really. A mindset is being planted.
That’s why I’m not interested in arguing with people who want to leave me defenseless against the next demonic attack … er … mass shooting. Most pro-gun commentators, including me, figured out a while back that the Organized Left had long wanted to turn the USA into a full-blown Leftist Paradise — one likely to be replete with cartels and jihadists armed with AK-47s and the like, true automatic rifles — have long had one fact which makes the transformation an iffy proposition: personal and legal ownership of firearms.
I said the following in 2003, the first year I started blogging:
It’s been demonstrated that states which have liberal (not Liberal) CCW regulations tend to have lower violent crime rates, so what could be the purpose of not adopting these regulations? Why would a government not want its citizens to be able to protect themselves?
- The government may want the average citizen to depend on the government for his/her protection. This will plant the idea that citizens can count on the government for nearly all of their needs. No, it doesn’t matter how demonstrably false the idea is. As we’ve seen in countless other matters, as long as the lie seed is planted, the lie will flourish, serenely unhindered by the facts.
- A government may want to be able to act with autonomy without worrying about an armed citizenry rising up in protest. (See National Socialist Germany, the Soviet Union and Cuba.)
- When a certain segment of its citizenry is hardest hit by gun violence, a government may just “let them kill each other,” taking care of the problem that way, or so it would seem. The government figures that the law-abiding citizens will eventually just give up and move out. (See Chicago.)
Are any of these suppositions—or others–part of the goals of those who continue to chip away at the Second Amendment? I don’t know. I do know that it has been continuously demonstrated both in the USA and in other countries that an unarmed citizenry is a vulnerable one—both from small-time crooks and from the big-time ones.
The Facebook/Twitter/CNN posing is fun, but when all is said and done, the anti-gun elite want you dead or afraid to die, which, spiritually, amount to the same thing.