Going on the Offensive: let’s not allow the pro-police staters to set narrative parameters
Since the day of the Connecticut shooting, I’ve tried to anticipate every cynical move progressives would likely make to try to capitalize on this (not new) “crisis”. Because I knew they would — and indeed they have, going so far as to pretend that their calls for less freedom and, as a consequence, a larger police state, is a “moral imperative.” But having gone on the offensive myself, I can now assert — based on the many many attempts that have been made to try to mischaracterize my arguments — that this is precisely the best tack to take. Because their inability to control the narrative is what weakens the left the most — and frankly, they don’t know how to handle it, save for the predictable lies, spins, and sneers that they hope will shame their intellectual opponents into silence.
It’s a constant refrain around these parts, but let’s repeat it again for good measure: those who control the language control the game. Which is why we must refuse to let the left control the messaging.
To that end, here’s Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, writing in USA Today and pulling no punches:
In addition to the gunman, blood is on the hands of members of Congress and the Connecticut legislators who voted to ban guns from all schools in Connecticut (and most other states). They are the ones who made it illegal to defend oneself with a gun in a school when that is the only effective way of resisting a gunman.
What a lethal, false security are the “gun-free zone” laws. Virtually all mass murders in the past 20 years have occurred in gun-free zones. The two people murdered several days earlier in a shopping center in Oregon were also killed in a gun-free zone.
Hopefully, the Connecticut tragedy will be the tipping point after which a rising chorus of Americans will demand elimination of the gun-free zone laws that are in fact criminal-safe zones.
One measure of insanity is repeating the same failure time after time, hoping that the next time the failure will turn out to be a success. Gun-free zones are a lethal insanity.
Israel finally came to grips with this in the early 1970s and have decisively stopped these attacks after a busload of children was massacred by Muslim terrorists. When I was there in the late 1990s, if you saw a busload of students, you saw at least one young teacher with a machine gun protecting the groups of students.
The Israelis have decisively stopped these school-related attacks and proved they want to live. Do we?
During the decade of the Clinton ban on semiautomatic rifles (the so-called assault weapons) and high-capacity magazines, crime did not go down. Reinstating it would simply be another example of repeating the same failed policy and being surprised with the same failed result.
We must tell our elected officials that they are acting as the criminals’ friends as long as they continue to support legislation that protects only criminals, not decent people.
Oh, and we must also insist that these criminal-friendly elected officials not even try to blame gun owners and our “gun culture” for what a criminal did.
Had a few of us been available with guns at the Newtown school, most of the victims might still be alive.
Pratt strikes hard at the heart of the problem: politicians who pass feel-good legislation to show themselves “tough on guns” in order to please the modern progressive effete, most of whom have never fired a weapon nor know anything much about them.
These are the creatures first to stick their faces in front of a news camera after each new tragedy to decry the inhumanity of it all — then begin hinting that they support yet another road of “controls” that punish the law abiding and keep those determined to break the law protected from those who would naturally uphold it.
It’s despicable. It’s opportunistic. And it shows the liberal fascist impulse, which these days likes to dress itself up as a moral imperative, with the State as Godhead and themselves, by extension, its humble priesthood. By insisting that they hold the moral high ground, and then reinforcing that belief through repetition and reassurance from within the hive mind, progressives believe they can will their manufactured consensus into a kind of perceptional “truth.”
But that only works until the firm finality of reality dissipates their post-modern mirage. And it always does.
Meaning the trick is in holding them accountable for forcing us to trust in mirages in the first place.
Pratt does just that. And we should be doing so as well at every turn. It’s linguistic tipping point time. Time to strap on your cup and take the verbal fight to the sanctimonious tyrants and their legion of useful idiots.