Grab some popcorn as this essay is going to tick off a lot of people. Mostly it will be liberals. Why? The title is accurate but guaranteed to be misread so I’ll explain it right off.
Today I saw a couple of related posts of interest. They got me thinking on this topic. The first post concerned how the NFL wouldn’t allow Pro-Life or Pro-2A ads because “they would be too offensive.” The next post talks about Bloomberg’s gun grabbing ad that DID play… on the Super Bowl broadcast. Hmmm. Well there’s some logic for you right at the start and the total lack of logic on the NFL. Not only their actions were illogical but also their bottom line so-called “logic”. Just whom to they think pays big money to watch what can certainly be described as modern gladiating? While all this got me to thinking, the failed logic and hypocrisy of the NFL isn’t exactly my point but their actions demonstrates it beautifully.
Why is right not always right? What I am saying here is it often does no good at all to use try to logically convince the left of the error of their ways. To paraphrase something attributed to AOC “Facts don’t apply to what I believe.” Time and time again, the globalist controllers tell us “Facts don’t matter.” Are we listening? I don’t think so.
In the Bloomberg post above, the author takes Mayor Shorty’s argument and dismantles it piece by piece until even the scraps would be ignored by the hungriest vulture. It will do no good. Get this: Liberals don’t do logic. They just don’t. For example: how many times has this been asked:?
What part of “Shall Not Be Infringed” don’t you understand?
My teen daughter asked me what “infringed” means. Good question! Instead of shooting from the hip, I looked up the dictionary definition. I’m glad I did. There were two but this one rings so true:
infringe: act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on
This word alone smashes any supposed justification for taxing, banning, requiring permits or otherwise limiting the right to keep and bear arms. Notice the word is “arms” NOT “firearms”. The word “arms” is a military term – short for armaments – meaning weapons. Thus “firearms” are included in this group but the term “arms” is far more expansive. Does this include “automatic machine guns? I would say “yes”. Personally I’d also say this includes battleships and fighter jets also, but lets not go there. Such is a fruitless discussion. Can you imagine the emotional argument “Well, you’re saying my neighbor could part an F-15 in his backyard.” Yeah, right, and compost dung from his pet Elephant to produce homemade jet fuel too. Logical hint here folks: most people cannot afford to shoot as much as they like, much less feed a belt-driven machine gun for any period of time. Only governments have that kind of money to burn. By the way… have you priced an F-15 lately?
The next “logical argument” the controllers bring up is the “well-regulated militia”. They seize upon this phrase with an “Ah HA! Got YA!” saying this means government oversight. Uh, well, no, it does not. First lets use some real logic. If one wants to know the meaning of these terms, one needs to understand them in the usage at that time. (infringe meant “infringe” then too.) To be “well-regulated” in 1789 meant… drum roll please… well supplied. Oops! That’s right you controlling fools. Drop your preconceived notions and face the facts. Now… about that word militia.
Let’s stay right here in Virginia. What better example can we get than the Virginian 1789 era concept of the militia? Simply put, the militia was comprised of every able-bodied man. They did state an age range but I expect such would be ignored in perilous times. Today, I’ve no doubt we would not automatically exclude women so it is safe to say that, in 1789 terms, we, the people are the militia. The point was the founders did not want a standing army, controlled by the limited government, hence the concept of the militia.
So now, when we put the entire 2nd Amendment together it states in modern terms:
A well-supplied militia, consisting of all able-bodied citizens, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Notice the only clarification I offered was in terms of the militia. I only did this because of the goofy idea that somehow the first clause overrules the rest of the statement and opens the door for the infringement specifically denied in the latter part. Logic.
The problem with all this is logic is lost on the emotional appeals to “keep our children safe”. Irrational visions of dead children everywhere mists the eyes so much they cannot see the truth. Granted a picture of any person shot to death is powerful imagery. Have you noticed how rarely, if ever, one sees a photo of a teen who died in a car accident attributed to texting? Considering the facts, why doesn’t “Moms Demand Action” take a stand against texting and driving? The answer is simple. Logic has no part in this. They like cars. They don’t like guns. End of story. Well… almost.
We all know far more people die in automobiles then from firearms. Why, then, do these get a pass? The answer, again, is emotional – subtle but emotional. Most Americans drive cars. We know cars. We like cars. Sure we know they can be dangerous but we’ve been around them all our lives and we know how to handle them safely. Thus the perceived danger is mitigated. The same cannot be said about firearms. Several anti-gun people have changed their minds after being taught how to shoot and handle guns safely. Others who have been thrust into the “gun culture” suddenly find themselves surrounded by sane, safe people who are generally decent and nice. A line in an old Dwight Yokum song, “The Streets of Bakersfield” said it perfectly…”you don’t know me but you don’t like me”.
So what do we do? In a word… punt! Actually, we need to step away not only from logic but from arguing altogether. It gets us nowhere. It accomplishes nothing. We also need to get a grip on where our own emotional buttons are. For some it is gun control. For others is is abortion. I could go on but you get this. When everything comes to a point the real battle is for the hearts and minds of us citizens. Deep down, we all want the same thing. Okay… most of us want the same thing. Those who want to be handed everything, I think, are anomalies. I am also convinced even those few have some sense of wanting to earn what they have. Those that don’t we will always have with us.
Instead of trying to “win over” the masses with endless arguments – logical or emotional, why don’t we look for common ground and build on that? Do we not all want to be treated like adults? Does a “nanny state” fulfill this desire? Do we like paying more and getting less? Who likes taxes? Who believes “that” person should get stuff for free while we have to pay for the same thing?
My personal feeling is we all want liberty. We all want freedom. More government always means less freedom – not more. Until we begin to limit government, our freedoms will shrink rather than expand as a general rule. Let’s roll with that. We do not need to “win” on gun control. We need to win on the principle of less government control. Set aside the distracting issues for now. Focus on things both sides can agree on.
If our goal is to reclaim our birthright – our constructional republic and a limited government – we need to keep our eyes on the prize. No matter how sane and logical our arguments are – they will fall on deaf ears. We do not need a whopping majority to win. All we need is enough citizens in agreement with the general principle to claim what is already ours. I am convinced we already have the numbers to reach this goal. All we need to follow through and insist on what rightfully belongs to us.
(Note: This essay was written over several days so references to dates refers to the day it was written, not published.)