Are you sick and tired of the hypocrisy of those who are still clamoring for gun control? There is one particular piece of far left hypocrisy which is even more outrageous than usual. An insidious bit of hypocrisy that didn't dawn on me until today. What is this bit of hypocrisy? Let me explain. In order to do so however, I need to set the stage first - stay with me!
To start, I and many others who write on these issues believe that some people desire a total gun ban from the civilians of our great nation. Can we agree that there are SOME people in our country who desire this? I am not naming names, or making specific accusations. But it seems to me that only a complete liar or totally uninformed person could argue that there are zero people in this country who want a total gun ban for civilians.
This being true, that some are out to ban guns entirely, I want to submit the quote below for your consideration. This quote will set up the central premise behind the outrageous hypocrisy I mentioned. Here it is:
Firstly, I blurred the name of the person who said this and the Facebook site which promoted it because who said it and where it came from is irrelevant to the truth of the statement. If you really need to know who said it, I can tell you, but why does that matter?
Is the quote true? Yes, the quote is true. How would the government enforce a gun ban or any gun control legislation on non-compliant citizens? They would enforce it with … FORCE. enFORCE. The answer is in the word, almost as if words have meaning … but I digress. The point is, the government will have to use force to compel non-compliant individuals to comply with gun control legislation. A total gun ban would require the same – government use of guns and arms to force you and I to disarm. This is a fact. Because if the government completely disarmed first, they would have no way of compelling you or I to follow their laws. Therefore, gun-control advocates are all for guns, they love them, just the centralized ownership of guns though - not when you or I own guns.
Which brings us to our main point in exposing their hypocrisy: Diversity. The far left is violating their "sacred" principle of diversity by espousing a gun ban or gun control. How so?
If guns are centralized, this means that they are all located in one place. This centralization completely goes against diversity which means to have things spread out, to have many things interacting together in various places, times, locations, etc. The far left doesn't want this when it comes to gun ownership. In other words, they hate diversity. More specifically, they hate diversity of gun ownership.
But I thought diversity was our strength? I thought extreme diversity in all things was a moral imperative of our times? Oh, just not in this instance? I see. In this instance, gun ownership should be centralized and guns should only be in the hands of people who all believe and think the same – i.e.: that government should be the sole possessor of guns. Disagree on this, and you step outside the group-think. Disagree, and your diverse opinion will not be tolerated (another moral imperative of regressive leftism they contradict in this debate) and they will use force and guns (ironically) to take your guns from you.
This blatant hypocrisy should be pointed out to anyone who espouses gun control at every opportunity. It should be exposed to all who are on the fence on this issue and don't yet have their mind made up. As always, ask the gun-control advocate questions and allow them to bury themselves with their own argument. Here is the question you ask them:
“Since you are for gun control, do you think all government officials, military, police, and agencies in the DOJ, should have to abide by your proposed gun control legislation? Yes or no?”
If they say “Yes” at least they are being consistent. I can respect the logical consistency of such a view. In theory, if the government also had to follow their gun laws like we do, we may be on equal footing with them (but we all know this theory would not play out in reality). However, if they answer “no” then I invite you to point out how ridiculously hypocritical this is. Show them this quote, ask them, “I thought diversity was our strength though? You want to centralize gun ownership which removes diversity? I thought you were a defender of diversity?” Ask them to justify this centralizing belief against their own dogma of diversity. Then get ready to hear the crickets...
All you have to do is ask the gun-control activist, "How would you go about enforcing your laws if certain individuals deliberately disobeyed your laws and refused to comply?" They can only answer two ways: They wouldn't enforce them or they would send government agents to visit those people and force them to comply.
Just to be clear - there is no argument against this quote or this line of questioning a far leftist can make without admitting defeat or throwing their sacred cow of diversity under the buss. Either they would choose to not enforce their gun laws (which means they wouldn't get their way on gun control) or they would choose to send in the government agents to use force against their fellow citizens (admitting that diversity is not a paramount principle or virtue they believe in). This is the fact and reality of the situation.
No one believes the government should disarm, that the police should put away their weapons, and that bodyguards and security teams at major corporations should patrol with nothing but their bare hands. They believe that gun ownership should be centralized in order to keep us all safe. Their solution to things like the Parkland, FL massacre is to centralize all guns into the hands of government. The only problem with this communist utopia is a pesky little thing called history. History bears witness to the horrors of centralized gun ownership - untold horror where millions of lives were and still are slaughtered without mercy. This is why arming the people and the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed - it is the best way to prevent genocide and mass slaughter.
If you think Parkland, FL was a massacre, imagine what a person like that could do if entire neighborhoods were completely disarmed? States? The nation? What could bad men do if the rest of us had no weapons? Bad men from foreign nations and bad men from within the bowels of our own nation. This is why the 2nd amendment is non-negotiable. All of your other rights and the peace we currently enjoy depends on it. It all hinges on whether or not we, the people, take responsibility to protect ourselves.
You have only two choices - take responsibility for yourself, your family and your own circle of influence, or trust someone else to do it for you. If that someone else is government, you may want to brush up on your history. Because you are not safer when gun ownership is centralized - you are at your greatest peril.
Why is this important - aside from trying to prevent mass genocide? Why not just leave gun-control advocates alone? Because there are young people out there who are watching. They are listening. They are trying to ascertain who has better ideas. If we do not give an answer and point out hypocrisy, we may lose more young people to the gun-control camp. We may lose more young people from the camp of liberty and personal responsibility into the camp of government regulation and hand-outs.
The bottom line for this argument is that if “diversity is our strength” and a moral imperative that is not to be violated in our day, then why do many of the people who preach this, simultaneously, hypocritically preach that gun ownership must be centralized (AKA – non-diversified)? It’s because they only want diversity where THEY want it. It isn’t a principle they believe in. They only want it where it helps them. If it was an inviolable principle, they would be arguing that gun ownership should be diversified - but they don't.
In closing, I’ll give you a simple analogy to make the point even more clear:
When we go to invest our money in the stock market, we all understand the importance of diversification. If we bet all our money on one stock, and the company goes out of business, we’ve lost everything. Hence why we spread our money out and “diversify” it. This “diversity” gives us security – it prevents us from losing our shirt in one fell swoop. Well, think the same way when it comes to gun ownership. If all the guns are bet on one “stock” (the government) and the government goes belly up, where does that leave you and I? Screwed. That’s where it leaves us.
This is why gun ownership should be “diversified” and spread out over the whole population – in case one “stock” (government, state, agency, person, etc.) goes bad, we are protected as a whole. The diversification of gun ownership brings us security and peace. When it comes to guns, diversity really is our strength.
Welcome to the Anatomy of a Warrior Blog!
National Speaker, author, blogger, and life-long student of warrior arts and science.