Bob Owens

The saddest truth in politics is that people get the leaders they deserve

The terror of the anti-liberty movement

Written By: Bob - Dec• 11•12

It has been instructive to read articles like Joel S. Hirschhorn’s Gun Hypocrisy, and to listen and watch as gun control zealots panic over the number of American purchasing firearms. These sad individuals seem utterly terrified that the 200+ million firearms and untold billions (if not trillions) of rounds of ammunition in civilian hands will be used against an increasingly invasive and lawbreaking government.

Ladd Everitt, communications director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) in particular freaked out last night when he sarcastically asked if the Obama Administration was guilty of tyranny, and I provided a dictionary definition, of the word, which is “the arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power,” and then pointed out the undeniable fact that the Obama Administration arbitrarly ignores written law as a matter of policy, which fits that definition precisely.

A hysterical Everitt then called me a “traitor” and “insurrectionist pro-gun activist” for providing that dictionary definition, and pointing out dozens of news articles by news organizations that prove that definition fits.

These men and those like them seem desperately worried that a massive armed uprising against the federal government could be imminent, and have put a considerable amount of time into thinking about (and no doubt losing sleep over) the possibility of that happening.

Hirschhorn seems to think gun owners are hypocrites for not already declaring war, and thinks that they haven’t done so because they are parasites of the very system they protest:

…how much worse does the government have to become before they finally get the courage to use their guns and restore American democracy and liberties? Do they think elections will save their nation?

After all, on a number of recent occasions, such as the election and reelection of President Obama, gun and ammunition sales have skyrocketed, despite an already historic level of gun and ammunition ownership. Yet still these millions of gun-happy constitutionalists do not act. What is going on?

Is it rational to explain all this by seeing the gun crowd as being incredibly patient?

Is all their talk and high-minded claims to be the last hope to save the country just a bunch of empty rhetoric?

Here is what I think explains this remarkable contradiction. In truth, the gun crowd that see themselves as the ultimate patriots, like the original revolutionaries that fought the British and created the USA, is itself conflicted by self-interests. That is, most gun owners are receiving so many economic benefits from the existing government and economy that they are unwilling to risk all of them by a massive disruption of the whole US system. Just like we saw incredible numbers of protesting Tea Party people looking old enough to be collecting Social Security and Medicare benefits, the overwhelming majority of gun nuts are also feeding off of the national system they keep attacking.

All Americans benefit from our capitalist system, from the richest of the rich, to the poorest of the poor. We are the only nation in human history where obesity is a common problem among those in poverty.

At the present, our nation has now twice elected the son of communists, and he is working with a cadre of  Marxists, communists, and socialists to fundamentally change the core of our economic system from capitalism to socialism, at a time where even the most blind among us should be able to see—live and in color—socialism collapsing in Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, and Spain (the so-called “PIIGS”). We are witnessing now the investor-class and wealthy fleeing French socialism, and the crippling decline of the Swedes, Belgians, and British social order and the bankruptcy of their social health and welfare systems. We seem American individuals and companies hiding their wealth offshore as a hedge against government greed.

And yet, America has not violently revolted against Obama, his radical leftist allies, and the “takers” undermining what was once an economic engine unparalleled.

Is it true, as Hirschhorn posits, that American gun owners haven’t rebelled because Americans gun owners are parasites? It is possible, but I find it unlikely.

Like the Colonial Patriots, modern-day Americans are slow to anger and seek to address failures and injustice through petition and policy. Even though our government infringes into our lives far beyond anything our Founders would have accepted without putting politicians to the blade, modern Americans have an advantage secured by the efforts of the colonials that they did not: the ballot box.

America’s gun owners are by nature conservative, practical, and slow to anger. As bad as the government has become under this and previous Presidents, we hold out hope that we can salvage the Republic without force of arms. Millions of American put on uniforms and put their lives on the line to win and protect our right to vote for non-violent change, and we will not disrespect their sacrifice by quickly or arbitrarily rushing into violence.

Much like the colonials of the 1760s and early 1770s, we have seen the rise of leviathan, and see the path towards tyranny laid out before us. We are taking the necessary, prudent, and practical precautions of equipping ourselves against corruption that would attempt to impose its will on us by force.

No American remotely cognizant of history wants the horrors of fighting another rebellion. We’re aware of the hardships, the destruction, poverty, and misery war brings, and many recent veterans and serving servicemen especially, have seen this sort of horror firsthand.

War is an awful thing, but:

“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself”

If there is a second American Revolution, it will not be started by the people, and it will not be started easily. It will come after a train of abuses and usurpations, and no small amount of bloodshed. It will be started by tyrants both petty and large attempting to impose their will.

It will be won by those who demand to be free.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.


  1. Phelps says:

    They assume that because they are cowards, we are as well. They assume that because they can be bought, that we can as well. They assume that because they have no patience, we have no patience.

    It it just one of a great many things they are terribly wrong about.

  2. styrgwillidar says:

    Well if Leveritt and Hirschorn were as familiar with US history as they should be, the might agree that the document providing the justification for the violent rebellion which formed this country puts it pretty well:

    “… Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. …”

  3. BillC says:

    It was instructive reading the twitter to and fro between Leveritt and Mr. Owens. It just shows that logic has no effect on true believers. Perhaps Mr. Leveritt could make the real world match his alternate reality by clicking his heels together and repeatedly saying “there is no place like (government) home.

    I also noted he kept using the word “regulated” from the 2nd amendment. I do not think he knows the way the word was used in the 18th century. I realize that “regulate” in its various tenses and iterations is possibly the liberals very most favorite word, but in the 1700’s, it meant well maintained.

  4. Steven says:

    I love how they use school yard taunts of “If you’re patriots you’d actually put your money where your mouth is and revolt.”

    They WANT ***LAW ABIDING*** Americans to act violently, so they can then say “see, we told you so”.

    Wow – amateurish and blatant.

  5. Marty says:

    Silly liberals. It makes eminent sense for people to freely arm themselves before a tyranical government is completely in control, than TRYING to arm themselves after the fact…

  6. Sam Schulz says:

    It is amusing indeed to see the word “parasite” used as a pejorative from a supporter of President “Income re-distribution”.

  7. McThag says:

    We also are aware that even if we “win” it’s historically unlikely we’ll get what we were after in the first place.

    We’d need someone like Washington who actually wanted to set aside the power and go back to running his plantation.

    The odds of getting a French Revolution are far higher and we have lots of examples to study to our south.

  8. It’s a lot easier to work up the spit required to rebel against a foreign oppressor than to do so against your neighbors — and let’s please remember that, as odious as the millions of persons who work daily to fetter us may be, they are still our neighbors. Very few of us are ready to start placing the crosshairs over the faces of other Americans. That will take tyranny of a far less debatable variety.

  9. Bill Dalasio says:

    What Hirschhorn conveniently leaves out of his analysis is the fact that Medicare and Social Security are mandatory. No one has the choice to opt out. To call someone a “parasite” when they participate in a mandatory old age pension scheme is akin to calling someone who was drafted into the military a warmonger.

    • Son of Liberty says:

      Excellent comment Bill. These are mandated by the federal government, and one must ask if the government intended for this by-product of Social Security and Medicare to be major factors in future years (of their passing). These were intended to provide some form of \’safety net\’ for aging seniors, but they may have also be intended (secondarily) to tie the hands of that age group which would have been most likely to \’rebel\’ against an out of control federal government to become so dependent upon that government to make any actual rebellion a moot point.

  10. Jack Dumbauld says:

    The last large scale successful rebellion started with the \”shot heard around the world\”. As I recall, this is when the existing govt. sought to disarm the populace. Does anyone remember the saying regarding not learning from history are in danger of repeating it.

    It didn\’t work then and it will not work now. Let me see if I have this right. The current government \”walks\” 2000 assault rifles down to the Sinaloa cartel in Mexico where 60,000 people have been killed in the past 6 years including two Federal Law Enforcement personnel and now they want to ban our semi-auto guns and magazines?

    It seems a bit racist that all these \”brown\” people have died largely with the direct or tacit support of the US government and NOW 20 blond haired, blue eyed children get shot by some juvenile nut job and all of a sudden, this same government gets religion and seeks to disarm us now.

    May I suggest, that they are as out of touch, naive and arrogant enough to believe that we will accept this to their severe undoing. Sometimes it enlarging the problem makes the solution more evident.

    I would rather die standing than grovel on my knees to this illegal criminal enterprise called the US government.