Taking Aim At The ‘Cult Of The Gun’
BY Herschel Smith
4 years, 9 months ago
Cute title, huh? It’s not mine. It comes to us via the UCLA Newsroom.
Some gun control advocates believe the amendment was never intended to guarantee an individual’s right to bear arms.
Dunbar-Ortiz offered a darker view of the founders’ intent: “The violent appropriation of native land by white settlers was seen as an individual right in the Second Amendment” — one of several points in U.S. history when the right to bear arms was invoked to secure white privilege.
“That long, intergenerational, violent struggle to take the land is why descendants of those mostly Anglo and Scots-Irish settlers today believe they are the authentic lords of the United States and should govern — a kind of blood right,” she said.
Even as she delivered blunt appraisals of modern-day policing, the National Rifle Association, Republican leaders and the Junior ROTC — a program that she believes is responsible for the “normalization of militarism for children” — Dunbar-Ortiz shared stories of her own immersion in gun culture. She grew up around firearms in rural Oklahoma, and in her 30s, she joined an armed radical-left group that amassed a huge arsenal.
“A firearm slung over your shoulder or a 9 mm Browning tucked under your belt creates a sense of amplified power, without which you feel naked and vulnerable,” she said. “Guns are awesome. They are also beautiful objects that are addictive.”
[ … ]
“If we do hope to develop long-lasting gun reform, it cannot be done in a vacuum and without consideration for the legitimate claims of gun advocates,” he said.
Dunbar-Ortiz offered a counterpoint. Invoking her extensive experience with communities fraught with guns, she said, “I don’t think it’s worth your time to try to convert them, frankly.”
Instead, she called on passionate grassroots organizers to fight for gun control laws at the state and local levels.
“I think the social movements are going to be more important than candidacy to change things,” she said. But, she cautioned, “I doubt that any common-sense firearms regulation can be enacted until the Second Amendment is understood to represent white supremacy and genocide.”
It would be too involved to give this a complete fisking, but a few things jump out at me.
First, it’s apparent that these so-called “scholars” have never really read the founders with open minds and thus they have no idea what they really said or why they said it. I’ll say again, my professor Dr. C Gregg Singer, made clear many times that one cannot be a real student of history unless he studies the primary source documents of the era. So for example, if you really want to understand why the American war of independence happened, you must read the newspapers, speeches and especially read the sermons of the day. The pulpit controlled the war effort.
Second, Dunbar-Ortiz, whomever that is, doesn’t think dialogue is useful (no doubt that’s probably correct). Instead, the suggestion is to rely on “gun control laws at the state and local levels.” Or in other words, take guns away from peaceable men by relying on … you guessed it, men with guns. The cognitive dissonance is rich and rewarding (at least for me). Whether they’re happy or not all depends upon who has the guns, yes? It didn’t take long for Bohemian hippies to turn into full-orbed communists, did it?
Finally, the real “gun problem” isn’t a gun problem, it’s a cultural problem caused in part by government subsidies, welfare and SNAP payments, which disembowel the inner cities and create and sustain fatherless families. Other gun owners are usually peaceable men. And yet, these people want to control and disarm peaceable men to the point that they have forums, wring their hands, speak in somber and solemn terms, and recommend draconian legislation, laws and regulations.
And they accuse us being being a cult! As I’ve said before, the desire to control other men is the infallible sign and premier vice of the wicked. So rather than being an illumination about gun owners, they have shined the light on themselves. Their article title was too clever by half.
On February 21, 2020 at 8:33 am, Name (required) said:
Dunbar-ortiz gets it: this is our land, because we conquered the savage aborigines and took it from them. She aims to do the same to us. This isn’t a polite disagreement with our compatriots, this is a life-and-death fight with people who want us dead, so they can replace us.
This is our land and our nation still. Dunbar-ortiz wants to conquer us and take it from us. There can be no place for her here as long as we live.
Our enemy gets it. Do you, reader?
On February 21, 2020 at 9:49 am, Mark Matis said:
Why pretend to be surprised? They yearn for the “good old days” of their Messiahs – Lenin and Stalin!
On February 21, 2020 at 10:45 am, MTHead said:
Brainwashed cultists read history to find something with which to trigger themselves, and other brainwashed cultists into action. It has nothing to do with truth. And one’s sense of hypocrisy seems to be the first thing that’s been washed from their minds by their handlers. I guess it takes a cult to beat one?
On February 21, 2020 at 11:12 am, Frank Clarke said:
I think they are preaching to the choir, and I think they know it. The recent success of ‘The Hunger Games’ series of movies very vividly displayed a society in which only the authorities have weapons, and I am sure the lesson was not lost on the bulk of those who watched: a disarmed society is an oppressed society and only those with guns or special favor eat well.
We rail against those who mouth threats against our ability to fight back, but we know, don’t we, that it’s all just words. Disarming 130 million people who already have 422 million guns and 300 billion rounds of ammo is not something that’s going to happen quickly or soon or without a great deal of bloodshed from exactly the class of people who think it can’t happen to them.
On February 21, 2020 at 11:21 am, Arthur Sido said:
Some communities have tons of guns and essentially no violence. Other communities have fewer guns but are home to virtually all of the gun violence in America. It might be worth her time to ask why that is, as clearly the availability of guns isn’t the issue. If she needs a bint, I could provide it for her.
On February 21, 2020 at 11:40 am, Fred said:
@Name (required) gets it. Period.
@Herschel, “Second, Dunbar-Ortiz, whomever that is, doesn’t think dialogue is useful (no doubt that’s probably correct). Instead, the suggestion is to rely on “gun control laws at the state and local levels.” Sir, I’m not certain that how you took it, is what she meant. That is the deflection they want, this is what she’s (it?) actually advocating: “I think the social movements are going to be more important than candidacy to change things,” She (it) is talking about politics by other means, aka, making war on us.
On February 21, 2020 at 12:54 pm, billrla said:
“A firearm slung over your shoulder or a 9 mm Browning tucked under your belt creates a sense of amplified power, without which you feel naked and vulnerable,” she said. “Guns are awesome. They are also beautiful objects that are addictive.”
There must be federal grant money floating around for sociology studies of this sort of stuff, because I have seen the same “research conclusions” cited elsewhere in the academic community.
On February 21, 2020 at 3:22 pm, penses said:
“This is our land and our nation still.”
Not any more.
The deep state told the palefaces they are the problem by putting a target on their back making Americans the #1 enemy because they are the biggest threat to the empire. The only successful revolutions where the outcome was more freedom were carried out by palefaces. The elite do not want this are are carrying out their plan to replace the uppity race with replacements.
BLM, LaRaza, ANTIFA, The Muslim Brotherhood, MS13, etc are all here to carry out the plan. It is not your country and it has been that way since LBJ signed it away to immigrants in 1965.
If you want it you are going to have to take it back. And it won’t be by voting. The Founding Fathers didn’t go begging to King George III hat in hand begging for a chance to vote.
On February 21, 2020 at 4:07 pm, Georgiaboy61 said:
@ Herschel
Re: “I’ll say again, my professor Dr. C Gregg Singer, made clear many times that one cannot be a real student of history unless he studies the primary source documents of the era.”
Academic history has become a Marxist echo-chamber over the last fifty years or so. Around that time began the great purge of the great works of history from the past – too many dead white men writing them, don’t you know! – and the substitution in their of works by Cultural Marxists.
Primary sources are consulted only when they help the Marxist cause in some manner; otherwise, they are consigned to the memory hole and ideologically-acceptable modern works (secondary sources) are used in their place.
The Leftists know full-well the words of George Orwell: “Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.”
It is also germane to note that the communists are in the habit of altering – or simply erasing – history and historical outcomes with which they disagree. Premier Josef Stalin – known to history as “The Breaker of Nations” – was known to have historians consigned to the gulags for writing history that did not portray him, the state or the party in a favorable light. If he was in an especially bad humor, he’d hand them over to the NKVD with orders that they should “disappear” (i.e., be executed and buried in an unmarked grave). The offending text would be given to another historian, with instructions to revise it along lines more-palatable to the Communist Party.
Veracity, facts, evidence, rigorous scholarship – none of these mattered. Ideological conformity is what mattered.
Today, the Cultural Marxists within our midst are doing much the same things, even if they have not yet worked their way up to demanding that offending scholars pay for their “crimes” with their lives. In Britain some years ago, there was a dispute when it was discovered that politically-correct Marxists in the school system had digitally-altered photos of Prime Minister Winston S. Churchill to remove his famous and ever-present cigar from his possession. The reason offered was that it would be “wrong” to show young and impressionable students an image of someone smoking.
The enormous danger inherent in allowing the alteration or erasure of history – of the facts of history – for nakedly ideological ends, did not seem to concern these leftist SJW’s (social justice warriors) in the slightest.
On February 22, 2020 at 4:32 am, Dan said:
It’s pointless to engage gun grabbing leftists in debate regarding the Second Amendment. They don’t deal with facts and reality. The ONLY
thing that matters to them is how they FEEL. Nothing else is relevant.
They FEEL we should all be disarmed so they can rule us therefore that is
ALL that matters. Attempting to change their FEELINGS using facts is
impossible. You don’t reason with the left…..you restrain them, by whatever means necessary just as you don’t reason with a three year old having a temper tantrum….you put them in their room and remove all dangerous objects.