By Albin Sadar
Like clockwork, every time there is a shooting, the cry rises up from the left that we need gun control. This demand occurs whether it’s a tragic school shooting or a couple of failed assassination attempts on their least favorite presidential person in the whole wide world.
The logic of a gun-free zone from coast to coast seems to suggest that without any firearms, school shootings and feisty ex-presidents would never be targets. Apparently, it is the very existence of the weapon itself that lures a person to wield it for nefarious purposes.
I grew up hearing the Right’s counterpoint to this logic, summed up in one particular mantra:
“When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.”
However, when I used this gun-grab argument twenty years ago on a liberal relative of mine, he flipped the logic on me. He said, “Well, yes, of course. That means anyone possessing a firearm would then be considered a criminal—whether they are an actual criminal or just an ordinary citizen—both would be equally guilty.”
My relative was right. He was also ahead of his time.
Today’s progressives have sought to criminalize those who use their weapons in self-defense. Recent examples include Kyle Rittenhouse, Mark and Patricia McCloskey, and Jake Gardner. All these citizens protecting their life and property reached varying degrees of national notoriety. And one, Jake Gardner, met a very tragic end.
Author and pundit John Zmirak, in the powerful closing argument to his new book, No Second Amendment, No First, recounts in detail what an anonymous person who knew Gardner exceedingly well wrote about his death. It is the heartbreaking story of a Marine and Iraq and Haiti combat veteran.
Gardner faced a grand jury after having to defend himself. He fatally shoot a man who was choking him from behind during a “mostly peaceful” BLM riot in Omaha, Nebraska. Gardner pleaded several times for the man to stop, but the man, a violent, previously convicted criminal, continued his vicious attack.
A couple of quotes from the horrific incident and subsequent grand-jury indictment leading to Gardner’s tragic end sum up the narrative:
Jake faced possible terms of 94 years in prison for unjust charges. This for having the courage to defend his own life [as well as his property] from a violent multiple felon who was actively trying to choke him to death, all of which was captured on high resolution video.
[snip]
After the corrupt decision of the grand jury based on falsified evidence was revealed, Jake lost all hope in the legal system and tragically ended his own life on September 20, 2020.
The anonymous author of this short bio of a wonderful patriot concludes:
[Jake] was a man that fought valiantly against terrorism and violent extremism in Iraq, Haiti, and Omaha. He was, truly, a Superman.
In Zmirak’s well-researched book, with a foreword by Eric Metaxas and an opening quote from Tulsi Gabbard, Zmirak makes the case for self-defense, an inherent right underlying all other rights.
Self-preservation is inherent in life itself, within every living creature, but foremost in human beings. In chapter after chapter, Zmirak points out how this simple fact of life—and of preserving life itself—eventually morphed from a proper, Biblical worldview to an anti-life, Progressive “hive mind.”
On a larger scale, Zmirak covers the historical patterns of how entire nations were able to enslave and control their populations, from the Soviet Union to Venezuela to Cuba to Cambodia to China to North Korea to many, many other countries. The pattern always began by disarming the citizens. Once the government had the guns, what they ordered was obeyed. Opposing speech would be censored—and lethally, when necessary.
“How do you think the Soviets managed to send some twenty million people to the Gulag?” Zmirak asks.
Zmirak outlines how gun confiscation can start small and, perhaps, initially target only select groups. Invariably, it leads to total populations being left defenseless—and speechless.
In one chapter, Zmirak sees the “Harmony of the Old Testament and the New” with this issue of proper defense. Within that “harmony Zmirak shows how many “progressive Christians” have accepted antithetical reasoning, including championing “[c]onfiscating citizens’ guns, rendering them completely dependent on Caesar for protection against violent crime and defenseless against any mob violence and possible future tyranny.” (Do we hear echoes here of the Jake Gardner story?)
A pastor once said that a person can become so open-minded that his brains fall out.
Ultimately, Zmirak’s goal in No Second Amendment, No First is “to show that the Christian view of the person, correctly understood, demands broad rights of self-defense for ordinary citizens—against both illegal violence and the prospect of tyrannical governments.”
Zmirak warns that we must fight against “impatient innovators [who] kick aside the tenets of Natural Law, Christian morality, the dignity of man, and the rights of the individual.”
There is certainly a reason our wise Founders followed up the First Amendment, protecting free speech, with the Second, the right to bear arms. Zmirak explains:
The Founders protected the right to keep and bear arms not simply because they saw it as the last defense against tyranny. They did so also because they viewed the Second Amendment’s protection of private firearms ownership as essential to preserving all the other liberties guaranteed in the Constitution.
No Second Amendment, No First is an excellent way to garner the intellectual weaponry necessary to fight the good fight for these crucial life-and-death issues.