2nd Amendment issues and the entire gun control debate has seriously gone off the tracks. Anyone who currently does or may someday want to own a gun is demonized by Liberals with arguments based on emotion, hypocrisy and flat out lies. Even more moderate Liberals are guilty of resorting to false logic in their stated quest of making us all safe when they support making criminals of law-abiding gun owners.
The above is a series of thoughts that have been percolating in my head for some time. I finally decided to try to write a piece laying out my feelings of betrayal by those whom I've supported in the past. I'm still having other thoughts along the lines of the Constitutionality of most if not all of the current gun control legislation and proposals being bandied about, but that will be a conversation for another day.
When I sit down to write a piece, there is a process. It generally begins as a response to a flushing of the face and a rise in blood pressure. The most effective course of treatment is to allow my fingers to pound out the excess energy of the adrenaline spike. Then, once my breathing has returned to normal and there is no longer a red haze at the periphery of my vision, I cruise the Internet.
Meandering the information highway with pit stops at my favorite lay bys is not a search for support or agreement with what I’ve just written; it is to make certain that I’m not merely though unintentionally repeating what other, better minds have already said. Sometimes I turn a familiar corner and find a new view at an overlook, a sight (or, site) I’ve never before seen that captivates me.
This is what happened to me today. I had written a piece about how intolerant many progressive Liberals have become, and my dismay over this development. In our national lexicon, intolerance has long been the charge levelled, and rightly, at Conservatives by Liberals. But when it is Liberals who are intolerant, no one seems to bat an eye much less point out the hypocrisy.
I don't refer to myself as a Liberal, even though I hold many decidedly Liberal views. I support a woman’s right to choose. I support gay marriage. I view anyone who judges another, dismisses, diminishes or marginalizes someone because of the color of their skin, their ethnic heritage or religion as dangerously un-evolved. I remember being truly shocked as a child when I learned there are those who believe the words “All men are created equal” doesn’t really apply to all men. And I've never objected to the term 'all men' as not being sufficienly inclusive of women.
I am a self-described Republican not because I embrace what is now referred to as Conservative values but simply because I believe in a smaller Federal government. I believe in State’s rights to choose for themselves how its citizens will live. And yet, I have always respected and admired the heart, the intent behind what I call the loving, all-inclusiveness of Liberalism. Some of the people I’ve admired most throughout history were Liberals, in the best, most altruistic meaning of the term. My mother is a Liberal, both in her social and political leanings. In other words, it is something I was taught from the cradle on.
Jane Addams was a Liberal. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Liberal. Harvey Milk. Gloria Steinem. These and so many other heroes of mine have all been Liberals. These people helped change our perceptions and the course of history by standing up for the rights of the poor, the maligned and the oppressed; they were social activists who impacted the very fabric of our society in all the best ways. They helped the rest of us see the rightness, the justness of treating our fellow human beings as equals, of deserving of the same rights, opportunities and justice as we desire for ourselves. Each taught that it is our inclusion in the species, not the circumstances of our birth, the color of our skin, the gender of whom we love or even our own gender that matters above all else. What in any of that is there not to admire?
In our current debate over gun ownership, it is said the heart of the Liberal is crying out for protection for those amongst us least able to protect themselves, our children. But, to claim this is a Liberal agenda infers the opposite position is the intent of Conservatives. Not only is this simply wrong, it demonizes the opposition and guarantees there can be no sane, rational debate and no chance of logical discussion. Sadly, too many intelligent Liberals who know better are not only willing to allow this, they promulgate this perception of Conservatives, this unfair, unjust and intentionally wrong reframing of the conversation as a means to achieve their goals.
I was satisfied with the piece I had written earlier today, then, I came across the piece I’ve linked below. Rather than the scholarly sounding piece I penned attempting to exemplify the inequity inherent in supporting one set of rights while restricting another, Michael Z. Williamson went for the jugular. With gusto. With wit and style he has managed to capture the raw emotions, the feeling of betrayal so many Conservatives feel.
His argument, while intentionally inflammatory, rests on solid logic. It can be argued laws protecting the rights of the poor, blacks, gays and women directly affect those groups but they also impact our society as a whole. By the same logic, laws restricting the Second Amendment directly impact only those who choose to own guns. But they too, impact our society as a whole. That is the point, say the Liberals. We need to impact society positively by limiting the type, quantity and access to guns.
Stripped of the hyperbole, the Conservative position is simply that it is the wrong precedent, the wrong direction to take, infringing upon the rights, much less the Constitutionally guaranteed rights, of anyone. This basic statement has been the battle cry of social activism for decades, and rightly so. Now, when the right being infringed upon is one that is clearly delineated in our Constitution, given such gravity as to be placed second only to the Right of Free Speech, those same Liberals who have been agitating for expansion of rights in every other sector of society are the very same ones who are calling for and even demanding a curtailing of another’s rights. This is hypocrisy of the highest order.
Follow the link below for the full article, but I want to highlight one portion by repeating it here. Thank you, Michael Z. Williamson for allowing me to vicariously vent.
“First they came for the blacks, and I spoke up because it was wrong, even though I'm not black.
Then they came for the gays, and I spoke up, even though I'm not gay.
Then they came for the Muslims, and I spoke up, because it was wrong, even though I'm an atheist.
When they came for illegal aliens, I spoke up, even though I'm a legal immigrant.
Then they came for the pornographers, rebels and dissenters and their speech and flag burning, and I spoke up, because rights are not only for the establishment.
Then they came for the gun owners, and you liberal shitbags threw me under the bus, even though I'd done nothing wrong. So when they come to put you on the train, you can fucking choke and die.”
The Post in Which I Piss Off EVERYBODY, by Michael Z. Williamson.
Type your email address in the box and click the "create subscription" button. My list is completely spam free, and you can opt out at any time.