Few things unite Progressive Leftists on policy more than their ire for the Second Amendment. Their rallying cries for ever-increasing state power bemoan an individual’s capacity for self-empowerment and the right of American citizens to keep and bear arms. This cause is presented to the public in a negative light. They believe if someone is able to protect their property, family, and community from outside threats, that those gun owners are an inevitable perpetrator of a future hate crime.
Leftists will profess platitudes proclaiming that “no one needs a gun.” They advocate for ever-increasing restrictions on who can buy which firearms and why they should be allowed to do so. They do this under the guise of progressivism and social justice. Well-intentioned Leftists may occasionally try to establish a future bereft of firearms. There are some uncomfortable truths to the reality that will arise if they are able to get their way.
Continual calls for the restriction of firearms access are often present in the platforms of progressive leftist candidates. Their fundamental arguments are based on lies about gun violence. These calls inherently shrink the powers and liberties of private citizens. This is not an issue that concerns the Left generally, as they have been becoming more and more statist with each passing year.
The Left’s hypocrisy is most glaring in this instance. The demographic populations most at risk from being preyed upon by outside threats have the most to lose by having their Second Amendment rights stripped from them. The communities that the Left claims to champion will have their rights restricted along with the rest of their fellow Americans. Across all groups, whether they’re racial, sexual, or religious minorities
Bigotry will not disappear from the heart and mind of a bigot simply because their weapons are taken away. Restriction of firearm access could incentivize further hate crimes to be committed because there would be an implicit guarantee that these communities are now void of firearms. Imagine if these communities were forced to be defenseless.
On December 29, 2019, Jack Wilson, a septuagenarian civilian, shot and killed a man who was in the midst of a murderous rampage. The attacker stormed into Wilson’s place of worship to massacre parishioners. Mr. Wilson saved many lives that day and set an example of positive gun ownership that was quickly swept under the rug by our victim obsessed national media.
Mr. Wilson’s story shows how one can act with decisive action in times of danger. So what would have happened if there were more people like him in our communities throughout America when tragedy struck? If there were a trained and armed civilian at the Tree of Life synagogue on October 27, 2018, then maybe the deadliest attack on the American Jewish community would not have been successful. If on June 12, 2016, someone was able to take decisive action when a madman started firing into the crowded Pulse nightclub, maybe the deadliest terrorist attack since September 11, 2001 could have been prevented—stopping the worst occurrence of violence against the LGBT community in America. In South Carolina, in the Summer of 2015, a white supremacist committed a mass shooting that killed nine people at a historically African American church. If a parishioner was armed, this tragedy might have been avoided.
These tragedies could have been prevented. Not by taking away the rights of people in these communities to protect themselves, but by encouraging members of these groups to become proficient in and adept at the usage of firearms. Unfortunately, Jack Wilson is the exception and not the norm. His community is not even one that is particularly at risk of being attacked.
The left has the mentality that, if they can remove guns from public consciousness, they can eliminate the bigotry that motivates people to act in the hateful manner that causes these tragedies. This is absurd.
Among the left’s arsenal of platitudes is the proven ineffective policy of defunding, and, subsequently, abolishing the police. These demands are being made by the admittedly Marxist BLM movement. They are farcical and should be treated as such. Their demands are not being met with calls for emboldening communities with accountability and responsible firearm ownership.
A crucial question must be raised. How do Leftists and BLM plan on protecting lives amidst a sustained outburst of violent crime? Violent crime that, according to them, is endemically bigoted after abolishing both private firearm ownership and the police?
Unilateral disarmament of the populace is not virtuous, nor will it yield an end to bigotry. One of the only things the left will accomplish by enacting their policies on firearms is ensuring that those who are the most preyed upon in our country are only more susceptible to future attacks.
The views expressed in this article are the opinion of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Lone Conservative staff.