Trying to discuss just about any topic with a liberal is a lot like trying to clap with one hand — lots of flailing around and not much to show for the effort. So it went when I recently asked a liberal this simple question:
“What would Obama’s – or any other form of — gun control have done to have changed the outcome in Philly the night of January 7?”.
It ought to have been an easy question to answer. If someone supports something, it naturally follows that someone should be sufficiently educated on the subject matter and able to talk about it in a smart, rational manner.
The first thing I had to explain to the liberal was exactly what I meant by “Philly the night of January 7”.
As everyone that doesn’t live under a rock knows, Edward Archer shot Philadelphia Police Officer Jesse Hartnett multiple times at point blank range. Somewhere between a lunatic interpretation of Quranic verse and the barometric pressure, Archer had been forced by climate change to join the Islamic State and then attempt to murder a Police Officer.
With “Philly the night of January 7” defined, looking back, this was probably the moment I should have pressed the start button on my stopwatch. Like small woodland creatures, liberals have a tendency to become unhinged when they feel they are cornered. Being of narrow mind and infrequent intellectual exercise, they rarely have a lot of maneuvering capability when discussions trend away from their rote talking points – in this case it didn’t take long for what ought to have been a civil discussion to devolve.
First, I was lectured about Sweden. Yes. Sweden.
According to the liberal, Sweden was “the biggest country in the world” because Sweden “doesn’t have guns”. I’m not sure how Sweden can be described as the “biggest country in the world”. I’m sure in some measure it is; maybe the liberal meant that in terms of Swedish populations, Sweden was “biggest”. Maybe it had something to do with Abba. Or maybe it was some other criteria. I don’t know. As for the Swedes not having guns? They rank #9 of 175 ranked countries in terms of gun ownership. Sweden has guns. Plenty of them.
“Make them illegal and they go away” the liberal next insisted.
To which I responded that drugs are illegal, yet they are still out there. A ban doesn’t simply make them go away.
“How come you never hear about someone on marijuana shooting anyone?”, was the next question.
Jared Loughner was very much into marijuana use. And other substances. He shot Rep Gabrielle Giffords back in January 2011. So you do hear about people that use marijuana shooting people.
Unhinged in 3 – 2 –
“Only Nazis have guns”, the liberal claimed. There it was. The invective. When a liberal can’t make it using facts, they turn to slander and rhetorical molotovs.
When the German National Socialists – it’s important to remember what Nazi stood for – rose to power, one of the things they did was disarm the German population. The Nazi Weapons Law of November 11, 1938 restricted private gun ownership to Nazi party members and “reliable people”.
As Edward Abbey wrote in 1979, “an armed citizenry, is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny”.
Gun control in Nazi Germany served to empower the Nazis. Had private gun ownership been preserved in Nazi Germany, an armed population could have served as a counterweight to the fascist regime which was engaged in unopposed wholesale repression.
Hadn’t the liberal just made a Freudian slip in admitting “only Nazis” had guns?
“Freud, nice German name a Nazi would like. Are you a holocaust denier too?” was the liberal’s response.
Except Sigmund Freud wasn’t a German. He was born in the now non-existent Moravia (in 1867 it was absorbed into the Austrian Empire and was later a part of Czechoslovakia and the Czech Republic; Slovakia and the Czech Republic emerged in 1993 when Czechoslovakia dissolved). Freud ran a private practice in Vienna until 1938 when he fled the Nazis and went into exile in London where he passed away in 1939.
How does one connect Freud to Nazis and holocaust denial? It’s a strawman only a blissfully uninformed liberal can construct to avoid questions like: “What would Obama’s – or any other form of – gun control have done to have changed the outcome in Philly the night of January 7?”.
Sadly, that’s where our conversation stalled. The liberal decided he had “already answered my question” even though he hadn’t, and continued calling me a “Nazi” and a “holocaust denier”. The young man’s ideology so thoroughly informed his ideas that he couldn’t comprehend anything beyond his own pinhole view of the world.
It would have been impossible for him to come to terms with Gandhi who wrote “among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest”.
Or Adolph Hitler’s observation, “the most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so”.
There was far-left Congressman John Dingell who in 1980 proclaimed “if I were to select a jack-booted group of fascists who are perhaps as large a danger to American society as I could pick today, I would pick the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms”.
And Hubert Humphrey who in 1960 explained “certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms…the right of the citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be possible”. Humphrey was very much a liberal. He served as Lyndon B. Johnson’s Vice President and unsuccessfully ran for President against Nixon in 1968.
With words like these still untouched and our conversation little more than two competing monologues, I decided to go back through our exchange to see if the liberal had made any appreciable point upon which we could resume a more thoughtful dialogue. The best I could find was from early on in our discussion. A slogan of sorts, because the left loves to speak in slogans. It was:
“Gun Control = No guns
Gun Controlled is what you are where a gun controls your mind
No guns = No crime”
Which doesn’t answer the question. Fact is, there is nothing in Obama’s or anyone else’s gun control program that would have changed the outcome in Philly the night of January 7.
— Pennsylvania already runs background checks on prospective gun buyers. It’s called “PICS”, the Pennsylvania Instant Check System. Buying a gun in Philly? The seller will run a check on you using PICS.
— Gun licenses are already required in Philadelphia as they are throughout Pennsylvania.
— Open carry isn’t illegal in Philadelphia. It’s discouraged, but it’s not against the law. Those that choose to carry their firearm openly must do so in a locking holster.
None of which applied to Edward Archer who acquired his weapon illegally in order to use it illegally.
There are already laws on the books that address virtually everything Archer did the night of January 7 – from his jaywalking into the intersection to approach the police car, his possession of a stolen gun, attempted murder, and commission of “terrorism” as defined federally in 18 US Code 113B.
Liberals can tell us all the things they’d like for a gun control program to do. In practice gun control programs won’t do any of them. The things gun control will do are injurious to our most fundamental freedoms. That’s why they can’t answer the question:
“What would Obama’s – or any other form of – gun control have done to have changed the outcome in Philly the night of January 7?”.
Image: Screen shot courtesy of: http://www.onenewspage.com/n/Entertainment/759ghe0dy/