The Real Reasons Why the Left Are So Hysterical Over Guns

Column by Alex R. Knight III.

Exclusive to STR

Ever since the February, 2018 shootings at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, the political Left in America – and elsewhere – have ratcheted up their traditional disdain for privately-owned firearms to an over-the-top, frantic pitch. The Democratic Party has made gun control its #1 platform priority for the foreseeable future, with everything from bans and stricter licensing, to outright gun confiscation and an end to legal ownership on the table. They've even had help: Donald Trump pushed through a BATFE regulatory ban on bump stock accessories, and at the time of this writing, he has also floated the idea of banning already heavily federally-regulated suppressors.

The mantra drumming out from these bureaucratic parasites is that the number and frequency of mass shootings – along with more routine gun crime – is at a critical level. We've all heard by now, I think, the catchphrases such as, “No other civilized nation puts up with this,” and “We are alone in failing to pass sensible gun legislation.” Never mind that just over a half century ago guns could be ordered through the mail without a background check, and most of the 20,000+ now existing gun laws on the books didn't exist – and high-profile shootings with multiple casualties (other than the 1966 Charles Starkweather affair) were virtually unheard of. This would tend to indicate that lack of gun laws and greater degrees of individual freedom have not been the culprits here, but rather a drastically different kind of society: One in which the nuclear family is all but dead, economic pressures and taxation have dramatically increased, laws restricting human liberty are far more numerous, government corruption (including police brutality) has continued and intensified, and violence as the basis for solving problems has become more and more widely accepted (with government itself, by its very inherent nature, as the reigning example). But these are complex, far-ranging, multi-generational issues that one cannot even pretend to fix with a few emotional speeches and the stroke of a pen. They also come, largely, as a result of leftist social and political initiatives. Hence, they are never visited, or even spoken about much, and it is to more utterly useless gun laws that the political class appeals. It's convenient, it's feel-good, it increases governmental authority, and it even wins votes in some places. All good for business as usual.

But that's their nomenclature. Deep down, the anti-gun bloodsuckers – who happen to predominate on the Left – know and understand that gun control does not reduce crime. True, it may slightly reduce gun crime specifically, but at the expense of all other types of crime escalating. Again, they're fully aware of this. The statistics have been available for years. So the question becomes: Are there any other motivations – besides winning political brownie points in leftist regions – for the members of the political class who pander to such collectivistic ideations to oppose firearms ownership?

I would say that, particularly as it applies to the Left, there are at least two major ideological reasons why they are so reticent to accept non-governmental ownership and carrying of weapons. First is the leftist idea of “equality.” In order to promote this concept, it is of course necessary that no one be able to assert a level of individual independence above or beyond that of everyone else. Naturally however, in order to ensure this “egalitarianism,” it is also necessary to have a centralized policing force who are themselves not equal to, but above the populace. This most obvious irony seems to not affect whatever passes for the conscience of the Left one bit . . . so long as they are ultimately in control of said policing force. It's quite apparent then that the “equality” the Left seek only applies to those who sheepishly agree with their false reasoning and allow themselves to be thus governed . . . and to those who may disagree, but are subjugated by superior force to the Left's will in any case. It is more risque', is it not, to coerce such individuals into submission if they are armed. That this inconvenient fact sticks in the Left's craw so deeply should be in no way surprising.

Secondly, and concomitant with this, is also the idea that gun owners are not as trusting of the established order as are their anti-gun counterparts. Implicit in the ownership of firearms is not only the desire to be individually empowered and self-reliant, but also a certain level of distrust – ranging from slight to total -- in the existing sociopolitical system. A belief that perhaps all is far from A-OK with the powers-that-be, and not just because Donald Trump happens to be president at the moment. A fundamental sense that, in the finished article, it is self-sufficient people with their own wealth and weapons who can best make their way in the world, and not bureaucratic systems filled with venal sociopaths spouting Marxist rhetoric, who are in turn starstruck by all the possibilities for self-elevation inherent to political power. 

Rest assured: The doe-eyed leftists who assure us that they only want what's in all of our best interests (as if any person, or group of them, could ever know such a thing in any case) are in truth wildly angry powermongers who fear that firearms give you and I just a little too much independence and ability to assert ourselves against an ostensibly “equalizing” state that they feel is poised to save the world from evil capitalism and individualistic greed through socialist restructuring – if only they can effectively compel our compliance. All their feigned outrage over criminal misuse of guns is merely a tool they think they can use to great effect. In some quarters, sadly, it is working.

This is all the more reason to show them you're not surrendering. Be every bit the threat they consider you to be by remaining armed, resistant to their lies, and a vociferous advocate for free markets and liberty. Be an advocate for widespread gun ownership. It's everything they fear.

Your rating: None Average: 10 (2 votes)
Alex R. Knight III's picture
Columns on STR: 153

Alex R. Knight III is the author of numerous horror, science-fiction, and fantasy tales.  He has also written and published poetry, non-fiction articles, reviews, and essays for a variety of venues.  He currently lives and writes in rural southern Vermont where he holds a B.A. in Literature & Writing from Union Institute & University.  Alex's Amazon page can be found here, and his work may also be found at both Smashwords and Barnes & Noble.  His MeWe group can be found here.


John deLaubenfels's picture

Well put!  These are indeed dangerous times for lovers of liberty and the means to defend it.  I'm less worried about more extensive background checks than I am of "red-flag" laws, which are certain to be abused until anyone who expresses anti-government views will find himself stripped of weapons (or of his life if he resists).

Alex R. Knight III's picture

They're already being abused, predictably, in every place they've been enacted.  But "red-flag" laws themselves are inherently abuse:  They presume guilt, rather than innocence, and provide a pretext for firearms to be seized at the whim of government bureaucrats.  Amendment 2 was supposed to forever bar and forbid such from ever occuring -- under any circumstances.  To say nothing of amendments 4, 5, and 6.  Proving, of course, that governments are unrestrainable institutions that always devolve into tyranny.  Hence, our advocacy of their summary abolition.
Absent that, the future is a very dark place indeed.

Mark Davis's picture

Excellent points and well said, Alex. More laws = more state control, the left assumes that they control the state for their own purposes, and a fundamental distrust of the state and its laws is a healthy disposition for promoting liberty and fighting tyranny (this does not preclude one from respecting natural law and doing the right thing by one's fellow man).

I never get an answer from the anti-gun brigade as to why or how one more law, or 100 more laws, will stop people who have already proven that they will not follow the laws already on the books. Every mass shooter (or single shooter) that ever harmed innocent people would not have been deterred by any law yet conceived. We have a people problem, not a gun problem or a lack of necessary laws.

Alex R. Knight III's picture

Your final sentence nails it down, Mark, and I do think a lot of the fence-sitters are beginning to wake up to that fact.  But for the political class, admission of that reality brings with it no benefit since the sociological problems that have led to this (most of which have been of their own making to begin with) carry with them no capital they can cash in on career-wise.  They need to be able to promise quick and easy "solutions" (to the problems their policies created in the first place).  Hence, gun control -- and the increase in their overall power that comes with it.

csaaphill's picture

I didn't write this but I do like it.
“Let every soul be subject unto the higher liberty. For there is no liberty but of God: the liberties that be are ordained of God. Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the liberty,resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the liberty? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same.” Romans 13: 1,3
This was what Paul was saying not submit to Govt's.
As to the Gun control debate both the left and right are to blame. I've always been a no-compromise type on our rights, especially the second amendment. What makes me sick is the right once there is a law they submit and follow. Once one is arrested violating these unconstitutional laws they're "Well! he/she deserved it they broke the law." Hypocrites.