Skip to comments.Why the “Good Guy with a Gun” Argument Doesn’t Work With Leftists
Posted on 11/27/2018 10:51:37 AM PST by Kaslin
As we are enjoying our Thanksgiving leftovers, some of us are thinking about the next set of issues over which the Left will spontaneously combust. Funny how its often timed perfectly for the next political fight and they are relatively quiet until people start paying attention after the New Year.
When Democrats gain control of the house in January, they will be fighting harder than ever to convince us that law-abiding citizens shouldnt be trusted to have guns to defend themselves. Not long ago, they balked bitterly at the accusation that their real goal was to repeal the Second Amendment. Now, many have finally started to admit that this is precisely what they had in mind all along. Good for them. Better for us. They are easier to beat when they tell the truth. Unfortunately, thats never very often.
Conservatives have an excellent argument in favor of the Second Amendment by proclaiming that it takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun. Unfortunately, it makes no sense to Leftists and its instructive to examine why.
The Left has been working overtime to erase the difference between good guys and bad guys. To them, we are all just as capable of being Charles Manson as we are Mother Theresa. They claim that individual choice and personal responsibility has nothing to do with who is good and who is evil. Maybe thats why they can always be counted upon to come to the defense of ruthless, hardened criminals. They have for decades perpetuated the idea that criminals are victims. Now, they've moved on to painting law-abiding citizens are criminals. This speeds us on the road to being all the same. Think of it as the redistribution of personal responsibility.
If you are white, male, Christian, or God-forbid, a Republican, you are already guilty without having done anything at all. If you dare to own a gun, you are de facto guilty. It doesnt matter what choices you make. The Left does not consider this to be prejudice as long as the right people are pre-judged. They argue that they can perfect the world and our behavior by creating a correct society which they will define for us. We are merely spokes in their socialist utopian wheel.
Whether its about women, guns, taxes, or trade, positions on the Left are built on the same collectivist bigotry. No one ever seems to hold them accountable for not counting themselves among the groups into which they have categorized everyone else. Thats how Michael Moore is able to rail about stupid white men even though he is one. That level of arrogance is reserved only for the power elite.
This crazy-making, upside down thinking makes most conservatives either shake their heads or giggle. How can anybody actually believe that? Possibly for the same reasons the Left believes that all women should be believed because they are women; that you can identify as anything you want but you shouldnt engage in "cultural appropriation, and that eating Chicken Cacciatore constitutes a holocaust on your plate.
Still, the Left is losing some of their mojo. Its tough to try to convince people that they shouldnt be able to defend themselves when Leftist politicians refuse to condemn the bullying and threatening behavior of their own base. In some cases, they have actually incited that behavior.
It is harder than ever to convince somebody like Tucker Carlsons wife to give up her right to defend herself since she was recently visited at her home by Anti-Fascist Fascists chanting We know where you sleep. People like this especially love the idea of repealing the Second Amendment. Criminals always like it better when the people theyre attacking cant fight back.
So what sort of Second Amendment argument could work with Leftists? I suggest we do a little cultural appropriation of our own. Lets resurrect some of the trends that liberals themselves made famous in the sixties. I dont think theyll mind, since they arent using them anymore.
Liberals used to be champions of free speech. They made it cool to be a non-conformist and to do your own thing. They put individualism in fashion even though they all dressed and spoke alike!
Before we can make the argument that "a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun," our opponents will have to recognize that there are indeed good guys and bad guys. Individual choices and personal accountability is what makes much of the difference between them.
“If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?” ~ Frederic Bastiat
To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the law abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless.
The Left just has a fundamental problem with “evil”. They don’t think it exists. This is a big reason they hate Christianity, since Christianity is very big on the concept of “right and wrong”. The Left feels threatened by such things. Just yesterday there was a thread here about a journalist who had a problem with JRR Tolkien and his depiction of Orcs as “evil”. For the journalist, this was just pure racism and totally unPC. Orcs are not “evil”, they are just misunderstood.
If there is no “evil” then no one needs a gun. Simple, eh?
There is no guarantee a good guy with a gun can save the day, but there is an absolute guarantee a bad guy with a gun will have his way without one.
Because they’re more smarter than us?
People that think that being defenseless is being safe are not worth arguing with. I often wonder why they would choose to be defenseless, yet they wear a seat-belt in their car... that makes no sense to me.
Don't waste time arguing, just tell them to get lost.
Another reason for 2A is to protect against tyranny.
Few, if any, point out that virtually every country in history that enslaved their people first disarmed them.
The ability to protect you and yours is a legitimate argument, but loss of liberty should be mighty compelling as well.
And have security systems at home and work (those that do work)
Or move to “safer” neighborhoods
Or enroll their brats in “safer” skools
Or shop at “safer” businesses/malls
There is only one thing that works with zombies.
This, I think, is the reason that Trump has zeroed in on Liawatha. The libs can't support her cultural appropriation for fear of losing the support of Native Americans. At the same time the libs can't condemn her for fear of offending all those who "identify" as women, witches, or frogs.
Every tyrant wants disarmed subjects.
To subject society to the false proposition that there are no "bad guys" or "good guys" IS tyranny.
Study: Concealed carry firearms owners have a 94% success rate stopping potential mass shooters
Of course, the Leftists could care less since this does not line up with their ultimate goal of disarming the law abiding populace (criminals will always have a way to get guns).
It is easy. You don’t need to read the long winded article to find the answer.
Democrats/leftists/totalitarians want no possible resistance to their planned tyranny. A disarmed populace is a helpless populace. Therefore their number one priority is disarming the law abiding. Democrats couldnt care less about crime, mass murders (except for their press arm the MSM to exploit them) your safety, my safety etc. they just want you to be unable to resist them and their beloved thugs in blue.
You call an article with 12 short paragraphs long?
They just want a pre-excuse in place, in case they want to do something evil, themselves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.