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

Political Correctness and Ebola
That there is a sensationalistic dimension to the Ebola coverage is something of which I have no doubt. Sensationalizing events is what the media does best. There may even be a sense in which it can be said that sensationalism is intrinsic to mass media.  Sensationalism serves the interests of t

posted 10:26:30pm Oct. 16, 2014 | read full post »

Capital Punishment Revisited
For a discussion of capital punishment, with no thinker is there a better place to begin than Ernest van den Haag. It is with justice that the latter’s seminal analysis of this topic is a staple of textbooks in college ethics courses nationwide: the author addresses the thicket of issues that are

posted 9:11:40am Oct. 14, 2014 | read full post »

Abortion Reconsidered III
Dan Marquis contends that except in “rare cases,” abortion is immoral, and it is immoral, he further argues, because the fetus has a “FLO”—a “future like ours.” Before arguing that abortion is wrong, Marquis first attempts to show what makes killing in general wrong. Killing is wron

posted 6:30:13pm Oct. 12, 2014 | read full post »

The Left, Columbus, and Why This Day is Still Worth Celebrating
Few holidays are as “politically incorrect” as is the day that Americans reserve to commemorate the birthday of Christopher Columbus. Such is the ferocity of the smear campaign to which Columbus has been subjected for decades that he has been made into a villain among villains in the rogues’ g

posted 6:11:01pm Oct. 12, 2014 | read full post »

Abortion Reconsidered II
John T. Noonan, a Catholic jurist whose work on abortion regularly features in ethics textbooks, contends that the traditional definition of a human being remains rationally superior to its competitors. A human being, Noonan insists, is anyone who has been conceived by human parents. The most com

posted 10:13:20pm Oct. 01, 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.