'Guys with Guns Dictate Policy'

April 18, 2014 - 9:16 AM

Over the weekend, I spent a lot of time reading about the Bundy Ranch Saga, looking into the area in Nevada where the Bundys live, and asking Google a bunch of questions I wanted answers to.

While researching, I happened upon a press release from an environmental group, and decided to call the person listed as the "contact" person.

The leftist environmentalist and I had about a 45 minute conversation over the phone about the Bundy Ranch, Nevada, and the history of what has been happening there, from his perspective.  It was a long time to be on the phone, and it was mainly due to him because, (and you out there who know people like this will understand,) he gave me a ton of hypotheticals to try to explain things to me, you know, because I don't "get it."

His main thrust on the Bundy situation was, as all the leftists like to point out, that Mr. Bundy didn't pay the feds, so their actions against him were justified.  As with all disputes, the left takes the side of their beloved government over the people.  But one thing he said made me want to write about our conversation.  He said of the Bundy standoff that it was, "sad that guys with guns could dictate policy."

That statement meant an entirely different thing to him than it did to me, and it's one of those things that defines a person as on one side or the other.  Either you believe that only the government should have guns, or you believe that we all should have guns in case the government decides to point them at us.

For me, his statement that it was, "sad that guys with guns could dictate policy," gave me two initial reactions.  One, that yes, it was sad that the federal government sent armed agents out against protesters, pointed the guns at the protesters, tased Bundy's son and threw his daughter to the ground.  However, we are darn lucky to have a Second Amendment to defend against such tyranny.

But, the leftist meant something entirely different.  He was upset that the feds backed down BECAUSE the protesters had guns of their own.  He was completely fine with the feds being able to have ample firepower over a bunch of people who didn't think their government was being just.

The difference in thought process is constitutional versus unconstitutional, natural versus unnatural, master versus submissive, and your perception of how the government works for you.

The left thinks the government works for them, because the government provides for them, and they work to use the force of government to enact policies they like.  We think the government is our servant.  It works for us because we provide for it, sign the paychecks, vote for our representatives.  We are the government's master, at least, that is how the nation was set up in the first place.

George Washington said, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

Government is force.  Government has guns, a lot of them, and not just for the military and police, but for many of their bureaucrats as well.  The left loves their bureaucratic guns to keep their policy enforced, and tend to hate the police and the military.  We tend to love our military and police, but are deeply distrustful of government, especially while leftists are in charge.

The Second Amendment is not to be trifled with.  People like Michael Bloomberg and gun control advocates in Congress are using their power in government to completely dissolve the power of the individual.  Gun control measures in states never completely work, and turn millions of would-be law abiding Americans into lawbreakers only because the government broke the Constitution that we are supposed to abide by.  It's entirely possible that millions of guns are going unregistered in states like Connecticut because people believe any gun control law is unjust, and are refusing to obey it.  To enforce such a law, the government would have to send armed agents door-to-door, and they know better than to do that, just as they should know better than to point guns at protesters.

The left's silly, childish view of the world, that the government is our boss, shows their willingness to use guns to get what they want, while our view is one of constant vigilance against a government too willing to use their weapons against us.

It's striking how totalitarian the "sit-in" hippies have become.  They used to protest government for being too powerful.  But now, they think it'll never be quite powerful enough until guns are taken away from the people.

At the end of our conversation, the leftist and I agreed that, after the feds backed down, there would be more and more of these sorts of things happening.  He was clearly sad at the idea that the government was not going to be able to win against armed civilians.  I was happy about it.