At the Intersection of Faith and Culture

At the Intersection of Faith and Culture


If The Left Was Consistent

posted by Jack Kerwick

The conflict over “gun control” is just the latest episode to reveal the unadulterated hypocrisy of President Obama and his ilk on the left.

Obama and his fellow travelers style themselves champions of “the downtrodden,” “the poor,” “the middle class,” and everyone else for whom “the rich” allegedly has it out.  But if they really are who they would like for us to think they are, if their rhetoric was consistent with their policy prescriptions, then we should not expect for them to favor restrictions on the Second Amendment—i.e. “gun control.”

If those on the left were consistent, then we should expect to hear Obama condemn as “un-American” and “unpatriotic” the gross “inequality” or “disparity” between “the wealthiest one-percent of Americans,” like himself, and the other “99%” on the issue of security or self-defense.

If those on the left were consistent, we should expect to hear Obama blast “millionaires and billionaires,” “the children of privilege,” “the powerful,”—like himself—for the “greed” that they have shown in availing themselves of means of self-defense that they deny to “the disadvantaged” generally and “minorities” in particular.

If those on the left were consistent, we should expect to hear Obama decry the “unfairness” of “the advantaged,” like himself, lecturing working class, middle class, and lower class Americans about the need for “gun free” zones while sending their own children off to well-secured private schools.

If those on the left were consistent, we should expect to hear Obama demand a more just “distribution” of benefits and burdens vis-à-vis the issue of security or self-defense.

Just as the fabulously rich and powerful—like Obama—have the resources and connections to evade oppressive tax laws, so too do the fabulously rich and powerful—like Obama—have the resources to evade oppressive gun laws.  Those who are not so rich or powerful, however, are made to feel the brunt of both.

If those on the left were consistent, we should expect to hear Obama renounce the “racism” of “gun control.” 

Those areas with the highest incidence of gun violence are overwhelmingly poor and black.  Those responsible for the gun violence almost always possess their guns illegally.  Only if they are armed can the law-abiding residents of these neighborhoods hope to defend themselves against the criminal predators in their midst.  But “gun control” makes it difficult, and, in some instances, all but impossible for this to happen. 

As long as upper-crust whites and blacks—like Obama—have the means to self-protection while poorer blacks are denied such means, racial justice remains elusive, we should expect to hear the President say.

If those on the left were consistent, we should expect to hear Obama reject “the classism” of “gun control.”  The latter imposes burdens upon “the 99%” of which “the one-percent”—like Obama—are free.

If those on the left were consistent, we should expect to hear Obama wax indignant over “the sexism” of “gun control.” 

Purveyors of gun violence are overwhelmingly men.  Men are also, on average, larger, stronger, and more aggressive than women.  There is no greater equalizer, nothing can more swiftly “level the playing field,” than a gun. A gun is the greatest means by which women can defend themselves against men.

For disempowering women, “gun-control” furthers “the misogyny” to which women have been subjected for far too long.  It functions as another sign that ours is a society that remains mired in “patriarchy.” 

If those on the left were consistent, we should expect to hear Obama lambast “the ageism” of “gun control.” 

The perpetrators of gun violence are almost always found among the young. And since the young are, on average, stronger and more aggressive than the aged, the latter are particularly vulnerable to being attacked.  Again, nothing can help the cause of egalitarianism along more than that of a gun.  The elderly more so than anyone else need to be able to arm themselves. 

“Gun control” promises to leave this need unrequited.

If those on the left were consistent, “gun control” would be recognized as the Second Amendment killer that it really is.

If those on the left were consistent, they would no longer be on the left. 

 

 



Previous Posts

Leading Atheist Philosopher Concludes: There IS A God
The Christian world just celebrated the Easter holiday, the Resurrection of Jesus, the God-Man, from the dead. Yet there are many people who either don’t believe in God or, if they do, certainly don’t believe that the Supreme Being assumed flesh in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. At the same

posted 9:47:19am Apr. 21, 2014 | read full post »

If I Am a Moral Relativist, So is God
Evidently, I am a moral relativist. In a recent article, I applauded a colleague for adapting to our school stage a play—Songs for a New World.  This play, I contended, marked a quite radical departure from the standard Politically Correct line insofar as it resoundingly affirmed “the morali

posted 9:23:32pm Apr. 17, 2014 | read full post »

Affirming Individuality: Reflections on "Songs for a New World"
Legions of Americans have, rightly, written off the entertainment and academic industries (yes, the latter is a colossal industry) as the culture’s two largest bastions of leftist ideology. Sometimes, however, and when we least expect it, the prevailing “Politically Correct” (PC) orthodoxy

posted 5:59:05pm Apr. 15, 2014 | read full post »

Pope Francis: A Socialist By Any Other Name
Pope Francis is once again insisting that he is not a communist, that his abiding concern for “the poor” is grounded in the Gospel of Christ, not the ideology of Marx, Engels, or any other communist. Back in 2010, while still a Cardinal, he felt the need to do the same. Why? It may very

posted 8:48:27pm Apr. 08, 2014 | read full post »

Pope Francis: As Clever a Politician as They Come
Much to the disappointment of this Catholic, Pope Francis balked on a golden opportunity to convey to the world just how fundamentally, how vehemently, the vision of the Church differs from that of President Obama when the two met a couple of weeks back. Why?  Can it be that Francis is the fello

posted 9:30:34pm Apr. 04, 2014 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.