The Real Agenda of the Left

 At the American Thinker today, Christopher Skeet asks Which Amendment Is Worth 'The Children?' Skeet's starting point is the all to obvious fact that after (almost) every mass shooting, the Left dances on the bodies of the dead while exhorting us to 'do something,'  hopefully without thinking too much. Because if we do think about it, we will realize that it's a bad idea. And just exactly how bad the idea is, is the what this article is all about.

Discussing gun control options with the eunuch class members of the press, President Biden quipped, “You couldn’t buy a cannon when the Second Amendment was passed. You couldn’t go out and purchase a lot of weaponry.” He continued: “It makes no sense to be able to purchase something that can fire up to 300 rounds. The idea of these high caliber weapons – there’s simply no rational basis for it in terms of, about self-protection, hunting – and, remember, the Constitution, the Second Amendment was never absolute.”

In four sentences he told five lies, which is impressive even for him. But these five lies are central to the anti-gun argument, so I’ll briefly expound:

“You couldn’t buy a cannon…” Actually, you could. In both the absence of a standing army, and in the war against the British, private American militias procured cannons at their own expense.

“You couldn’t go out and purchase a lot of weaponry.” Actually, you could. There were never any colonial laws limiting the number of guns or amount of ammunition you could purchase.

“It makes no sense to be able to purchase something that can fire up to 300 rounds”. This would be news to gun owners, as no ammunition magazine holds anywhere near that amount. The standard magazine capacity for an AR-15 is thirty rounds.

“…there’s simply no rational basis for it in terms of, about self-protection, hunting…” The Second Amendment offers no such basis. The purpose of the Second Amendment isn’t for self-protection or for hunting. The purpose of the Second Amendment is in its “being necessary to the security of a free State.” And for that purpose, there is an overwhelming rational basis, of which Joe Biden is Exhibit One.

“…the Constitution, the Second Amendment was never absolute.” Actually, it is. Amendments can be overturned, and Biden is free to try. But until then, the Constitution and its amendments are not subject to change at the whim of the mob. They are the absolute foundation from which all our laws derive. That’s the whole point.

Skeet points out that Biden has never needed a gun for self protection, having been protected his entire life by others. And while this is not part of the article, I feel it is important to point out that many people living in perilous neighborhoods, or having perilous jobs, do indeed need weapons for self defense. And a huge number of those people are the very people Biden depends on to stay in power.

Joe Biden has never needed to own a gun for self-protection or otherwise, seeing as he was able to defang the mighty Corn Pop utilizing nothing but the ol’ Scranton One-Two. But for the sake of argument, let’s assume that Biden is able to either 1) get the Second Amendment overturned or, 2) forum shop to get an anti-gun ruling by a favorable court, appellate court, or the Supreme Court. This would all no doubt be conducted in the name of “public safety,” or “protecting our children,” etc. The Constitution and its Amendments, we are told, are ossified relics of white supremacy.

But if that’s the case, why stop there? In the interests of “protecting our children,” why not re-imagine, as they say, additional amendments? As these mass shooters are attempting to create as much carnage as possible publicity, why not deny them this by revoking the freedom of the press under the First Amendment? How many children would be protected by criminalizing the publication of any information about mass shooters, their backgrounds, their motives, their manifestos, indeed even any information about the crime itself? How many would-be mass shooters would be dissuaded by the knowledge that the world will never know what they did?

Skeet goes on to suggest other of the Bill of Rights that might go by the wayside in the interests of protecting 'The Children.' And as you may have noticed from this examples, this examination of what rights might be given up for the sake of stopping school shootings is within the satirical tradition of Jonathon Swift suggesting that the Irish eat their own children. Going on:

But these Amendments prioritize the individual over the overall safety of the collective. And if the Left wants to reverse this prioritization, does it not stand to reason that these amendments are obsolete inhibitors to a better society? Why should the accused have so many safeguards? The truly innocent, if indeed they be of noble and “woke” character, will gladly accept the burden of proving their bona fides…just like they do in corporate anti-racism workshops, in public schools, and on Twitter. And if a few innocents do get imprisoned with the criminals? Meh. To paraphrase the New York Times’ Walter Duranty’s defense of the Ukrainian genocide, you can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. What’s more important? The fate of a few so-called innocents, or “protecting the children”?

What about the Eighth Amendment, which protects against both excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishment? Many leftist DAs are trying to eliminate bail altogether. But in the interests of “public safety” and “protecting the children”, shouldn’t we instead push for excessive bail? And why not inflict cruel and unusual punishment? If you apply the punishment a certain number of times, it ceases to be “unusual” and becomes “usual.” And wouldn’t so-called “cruel” punishment, if applied unsparingly and uniformly to every violent criminal, not deter others? If criminals realized that their crimes would be answered not by the usual slap on the wrist, but by being drawn and quartered in a public square, would this not drastically reduce crime? Is not “public safety” and “protecting the children” worth it?

While this piece is satire, it points out that to take away the Second Amendment is not enough. To then actually take away the guns requires that the breaching of every other protection Americans have enjoyed against tyrannous and authoritarian government. Recognizing that the Left does not intend to do so, what can be their real agenda?

Which brings up The Unspoken Wisdom of the Second Amendment by Anthony Matoria at the American Thinker. In it Matoria points out that if we are to have a free state, we must be able to be our own first responders in any situation that might arise. The government can not be everywhere all the time. The truth is that the there is no such thing as absolute safety. We are more or less at risk every second of every day that we are alive.

A free state implies necessary restraints on the armed agencies of government that are vested with the authority to use force. These restraints lessen the risk that such entities will become agents of tyranny, but they also impede their ability to defend the lives and safety of individual citizens. Unless the people are willing to accommodate an oppressive and intrusive police presence in the interest of "public safety," the citizens of a free state (i.e., one in which government force is restrained in the interest of individual liberties) must be allowed the right and means to provide their own defense. The idea of a free state is incompatible with the degree of surveillance, control, and intrusiveness necessary for police agencies to provide the elusive and illusory security that forms the basis of gun control appeals. Onerous restrictions on the ability for citizens to defend themselves against violence and criminal threats are hallmarks of authoritarianism, and authoritarianism is incompatible with a free State.

A central inconsistency at the center of progressive thought is the manner in which it regards trade-offs inherent in its agenda. The progressive is only willing to consider cherry-picked and ideologically favorable consequences in formulating his worldview. These ideology-compatible consequences often infringe the rights of others, but the progressive ideologue refuses to acknowledge that human reality cares little for this selective, naïve, and reckless dismissal of consequences. Examples of such inconsistency abound: we can give up fossil fuels without the elite having to sacrifice their private jets or standards of living; universities can replace rigorous intellectual inquiry with woke pieties without impairing graduates' readiness to contribute meaningfully to society; we can accommodate drug use and untreated mental illness without incurring increased crime, homelessness, and drug-related deaths. The progressive sees those as tradeoffs to be borne by others, and therefore not worth considering.

Nowhere is this penchant for selective consideration and disregard of consequences more apparent than in appeals to "safety." Safetyism is a pernicious doctrine that ultimately impedes the ability of a free society to function and survive. Consider, for example, the number of times during the COVID pandemic that officials of various sorts and competencies assured us that "the health and safety of [someone or other] is our top priority," or that everyday life and economic activity were disrupted "out of an abundance of caution." Now imagine that the chief of the Uvalde School District's police had stood behind a podium and said, "The health and safety of my officers is my highest priority," or "We did not attempt to enter the school out of an abundance of caution." Such an admission would strike the average person as odd, and perhaps evoke protests, yet it appears that it would be close to the actual scenario. When safety becomes an obsession, it paradoxically becomes a peril. Caution is like Tylenol: helpful in small doses, toxic in large ones.

The "safety" the Left offers with gun control is illusory. In fact, anything can be used as a weapon, and some things are more indiscriminate than any gun. The 9/11 terrorists used planes to kill 3,000 Americans. The Waukesha killer used a car to mow down Christmas celebrants. But no one is suggesting that we ban assault automobiles or limit airplanes to only those with a special need. No, I think the answer to what there real agenda is this:

Despite their incessant jabbering about the “structural racism” of the Constitution, leftists have no intention of scrapping any Amendments other than the Second (at least not without reworded protections for their own shock troops). This is because their exclusive goal is the complete centralization of tyrannical power, the helm of which they feel they’re entitled to commandeer. It is not, never was, and never will be about “protecting the children.”