Foreword:
In yesterday's post, I mentioned a Los Angeles Times cartoon comparing militia members to cockroaches, noting:
Here's a commentary I wrote a few years back, no longer posted anywhere and dusted off for WarOnGuns.
__________________________________________
A letter praising Sen. Dianne Feinstein's bid to ban "high capacity" magazines appeared in The Los Angeles Times a while back. What made it stand out was the arrogance and prejudice displayed by the writer, and his unveiled contempt for those of us who believe in the right to keep and bear arms.
Make no mistake- if you understand and support the Second Amendment, you are a minority. As such, you are subject to the same stereotypes, hateful treatment and name-calling as any other minority group victimized by prejudice. Where this letter is illustrative is that it demonstrates how, contrary to their own rhetoric, those with a leftist world view reek of bigotry and intolerance for anyone who does not fit within their criteria for acceptability.
Want proof? Let's analyze the letter.
According to the letter's writer, children of gang members are automatically "little thugs." This is the true outrage- what a bigoted remark! Our Constitution specifically repudiates the concept of "corruption of blood." But the fruit never falls far from the tree, eh? And since being a chip off the old block has nothing to do with cultural influences, what else could such incipient thuggery be attributed to but a genetic predisposition? So why not just lock these proto-felons up now, before they hurt somebody, and be done with it?
In the writer's elitist circles, a rural father passing on safe and responsible firearms practices is the moral equivalent of a gangbanger. A patriot is a thug.
With the contempt this guy has already displayed for large segments of our culture, I guess it's not surprising that he values human life so cheaply as to equate the victim of a gang attack with a soda can or a game animal. Which brings us to his next pontification:
Finally, the sage has said something which can be corroborated- he hates. Somehow, I'm not surprised. But does he really hate killing things? Note that he said "things" and not "people", but then, haven't we established that someone with his demonstrated level of ethical development gives them both equal shrift?
But now, let us get to the crux of this analysis. Let's talk about what he really hates. Or I should say "who." I'd like to address the concept of "bubbas of the NRA" by asking the reader to play a little word substitution game. Instead of "bubbas," which is derisive of the pro-firearms rights minority and one of their organizations, pick a stereotypical offensive term for the members of a different minority group and one of their organizations. Try it: the ___________ of the ___________.
Uh- dude? Isn't this what you people on the left call "hate speech"?
As we all know, the fragile little things by nature just don't have the courage us manly men do (must be some inherent inferiority, like with the young thugs, eh?). Would he also call her a credit to her sex?
For someone with such contempt for the worthiness of his fellow human beings, it would please me no end to think that the writer chooses not to own a gun. Except we can't always rely on actions following words; remember, his idol, the "gutsy" Senator Feinstein sees no problem with carrying one- she just doesn't want you to have the same option. The same is true with California State Senator Don Perata, author of the state's most recent "assault weapons" ban. But we at least see why they are kindred spirits, sharing the common bond of elitism and disregard for the dignity and trustworthiness of "average" citizens.
In turn, these politicians share the bond of contempt for and prejudice against gun owners with the major media outlets, and particularly with The Los Angeles Times. And, despite their self-proclaimed roles as champions of social equality, they resort to the lowest forms of class warfare to advance their agenda of citizen disarmament.
This offensive letter was not just another opinion being expressed by another reader. It was selected by agenda-driven editors from among many submissions for a reason. In a very real way he spoke for The Times, reaffirming points they have been stressing on a continual basis, oftentimes not even bothering to mask their virulence.
Case in point: some time ago, they published a chilling political cartoon. A stereotypical "militia" member was lifting up a large rock, yelling "Regroup!" as cockroaches were running toward it for cover. The message was clear. And the propaganda technique has been borrowed straight from the most evil regimes the planet has ever known.
To sway public opinion against a minority group, that group must first be dehumanized, that is, made to appear subhuman. This destroys empathy for that group, and allows for further encroachments against them. It allows you to portray people who teach their kids how to safely handle a firearm as slack-jawed "bubbas," dolts who are too incompetent to be entrusted with guns. This allows you to begin disarming them.
Then comes the next step in the fomenting of public hatred- portraying a group of human beings that you want to eliminate as vermin. Like cockroaches. Nasty, filthy "things" that need to be exterminated. And once they've been disarmed, you can.
It's not like this hasn't happened before. Many times.
To the hate-filled writer: we are not "bubbas." To the hatemongers of The Los Angeles Times: we are not vermin.
And to politicians who would exploit this hatred to enhance their own power, let me tell you what we are- free men and women who yet possess the means to resist your predation.
How can you tell? It's easy. Unlike prey, slaves, subjects and prisoners, we have guns.
And we intend to keep them.
In yesterday's post, I mentioned a Los Angeles Times cartoon comparing militia members to cockroaches, noting:
Those who would rule have mastered the time-proven technique that if you dehumanize a segment of society you wish to eliminate, you can treat them inhumanely without a general outcry.
Here's a commentary I wrote a few years back, no longer posted anywhere and dusted off for WarOnGuns.
__________________________________________
A letter praising Sen. Dianne Feinstein's bid to ban "high capacity" magazines appeared in The Los Angeles Times a while back. What made it stand out was the arrogance and prejudice displayed by the writer, and his unveiled contempt for those of us who believe in the right to keep and bear arms.
Make no mistake- if you understand and support the Second Amendment, you are a minority. As such, you are subject to the same stereotypes, hateful treatment and name-calling as any other minority group victimized by prejudice. Where this letter is illustrative is that it demonstrates how, contrary to their own rhetoric, those with a leftist world view reek of bigotry and intolerance for anyone who does not fit within their criteria for acceptability.
Want proof? Let's analyze the letter.
"Imagine a bunch of gang fathers taking their little thugs into the woods to teach them how to shoot their semiautomatic high-capacity weapons with deadly accuracy. The thought is outrageous."
According to the letter's writer, children of gang members are automatically "little thugs." This is the true outrage- what a bigoted remark! Our Constitution specifically repudiates the concept of "corruption of blood." But the fruit never falls far from the tree, eh? And since being a chip off the old block has nothing to do with cultural influences, what else could such incipient thuggery be attributed to but a genetic predisposition? So why not just lock these proto-felons up now, before they hurt somebody, and be done with it?
"Replace this scenario with one in which rural fathers dress their little patriots in camouflage and show them how to shoot their semiautomatic high-capacity weapons with deadly accuracy."
In the writer's elitist circles, a rural father passing on safe and responsible firearms practices is the moral equivalent of a gangbanger. A patriot is a thug.
"The aim of both groups is the same. Kill your target."
With the contempt this guy has already displayed for large segments of our culture, I guess it's not surprising that he values human life so cheaply as to equate the victim of a gang attack with a soda can or a game animal. Which brings us to his next pontification:
"As much as I hate killing anything, I agree that we will not disarm either the gangbangers or the bubbas of the NRA in my lifetime, but we can at least limit their firepower."
Finally, the sage has said something which can be corroborated- he hates. Somehow, I'm not surprised. But does he really hate killing things? Note that he said "things" and not "people", but then, haven't we established that someone with his demonstrated level of ethical development gives them both equal shrift?
But now, let us get to the crux of this analysis. Let's talk about what he really hates. Or I should say "who." I'd like to address the concept of "bubbas of the NRA" by asking the reader to play a little word substitution game. Instead of "bubbas," which is derisive of the pro-firearms rights minority and one of their organizations, pick a stereotypical offensive term for the members of a different minority group and one of their organizations. Try it: the ___________ of the ___________.
Uh- dude? Isn't this what you people on the left call "hate speech"?
"Feinstein has more guts than most men in politics."
As we all know, the fragile little things by nature just don't have the courage us manly men do (must be some inherent inferiority, like with the young thugs, eh?). Would he also call her a credit to her sex?
For someone with such contempt for the worthiness of his fellow human beings, it would please me no end to think that the writer chooses not to own a gun. Except we can't always rely on actions following words; remember, his idol, the "gutsy" Senator Feinstein sees no problem with carrying one- she just doesn't want you to have the same option. The same is true with California State Senator Don Perata, author of the state's most recent "assault weapons" ban. But we at least see why they are kindred spirits, sharing the common bond of elitism and disregard for the dignity and trustworthiness of "average" citizens.
In turn, these politicians share the bond of contempt for and prejudice against gun owners with the major media outlets, and particularly with The Los Angeles Times. And, despite their self-proclaimed roles as champions of social equality, they resort to the lowest forms of class warfare to advance their agenda of citizen disarmament.
This offensive letter was not just another opinion being expressed by another reader. It was selected by agenda-driven editors from among many submissions for a reason. In a very real way he spoke for The Times, reaffirming points they have been stressing on a continual basis, oftentimes not even bothering to mask their virulence.
Case in point: some time ago, they published a chilling political cartoon. A stereotypical "militia" member was lifting up a large rock, yelling "Regroup!" as cockroaches were running toward it for cover. The message was clear. And the propaganda technique has been borrowed straight from the most evil regimes the planet has ever known.
To sway public opinion against a minority group, that group must first be dehumanized, that is, made to appear subhuman. This destroys empathy for that group, and allows for further encroachments against them. It allows you to portray people who teach their kids how to safely handle a firearm as slack-jawed "bubbas," dolts who are too incompetent to be entrusted with guns. This allows you to begin disarming them.
Then comes the next step in the fomenting of public hatred- portraying a group of human beings that you want to eliminate as vermin. Like cockroaches. Nasty, filthy "things" that need to be exterminated. And once they've been disarmed, you can.
It's not like this hasn't happened before. Many times.
To the hate-filled writer: we are not "bubbas." To the hatemongers of The Los Angeles Times: we are not vermin.
And to politicians who would exploit this hatred to enhance their own power, let me tell you what we are- free men and women who yet possess the means to resist your predation.
How can you tell? It's easy. Unlike prey, slaves, subjects and prisoners, we have guns.
And we intend to keep them.