By Kerwin Holmes, Jr.
The fault does not lie in taking a stand…but it is in knowing what to stand for, what to stand upon, and how to truly take a stand.
You know, this will be a small rant because most of my work has already been done for me.
Seriously, and I am very thankful for this.
So excuse me as I engage in just blazing through some things with the usual URL links to reference what I am saying with credible sources providing data that not only supports my opinions but also gives demonstrable evidence for them, unlike Dr. Reza Aslan’s “academic” novels. (Sorry Reza Aslan, my blog is already more referenced than your novel Zealot by a considerable margin). I just finished that storybook, so I apologize for the random shade. I may write about that later, but in the meantime, after you read this post, you can be amused at Reza Aslan with this and this.
So…I am a recent graduate from a liberal arts secondary educational institution. For most of America, depending upon how far that institution’s provided education goes, that means a college or a university. I really want to stress that I don’t mean everybody whenever I tell stories about my interactions with fellow college students unless I specifically say everybody. So, I say now that I encountered many students (especially the higher up the academic food chain that I went) who were all for President Obama’s gun restriction proposals and even the general banning of high-powered arms (however those can ever be defined) from among the general populace. Tragically, the latest nationally televised mass shooting that occurred in the United States happened last year in a state that already has some of the country’s strictest gun laws. This should cause concern in more ways than one.
There is a mantra that many progressives give that “We cannot legislate morality.” In the most obvious ways, that is the single dumbest statement to make in any discussion about society and civilization. In another way though, it is very true, and that is why we make laws of enforcement for persons who break those said laws.
That is, until the progressive laws of enforcement for murderers call for an adult version of time-out. Progressive laws against civilian guns are “NO, NEVER, SEND THEM AWAY FOREVAAAAAAH!!!!” If we could put the gun to death that was used in murder, we would. When the conversation of reapplying capital punishment for a deterrent against the loss of human life comes up, progressives tend to vehemently shout it down because it would result in the loss of human life (the convicted murderers’) after they (the convicted murderers) have caused the loss of human life. The best thing apparently is to put them all into federally run convicted murder clubs, which we call prisons. And then we cry to our government that we are spending too much money building these clubs instead of building our clubs for manufacturing new progressives, which tend to be secular liberal arts institutions.
But abortions are okay though because babies can be guilty of intruding into their mother’s wombs without their permission….which is far worse than murdering a person or multiple persons in shooting-sprees and should be provided federal funding for capital punishment.
Nevertheless, gun-control is the issue. It should be noted that many of my colleagues supporting these new gun-control measures were minorities, most of African-descent.
So, why do I mention that? It begins with how California came to have those strict gun laws in the first place. It turns out that it was mainly a response to young black American men taking up arms to patrol the streets of their neighborhoods from the police that would prey upon them and predators from within their community, and also as a sign of protest by positively exercising their constitutional right to bear arms. They even carried their weapons to the capitol building in California! Who were these young men who dared do these constitutional things? They were the members of the Black Panther Party of the late 1960s who would come to characterize the entire group’s history by their actions done in the western United States. In short, they were a group that many a liberal student, progressive, and self-proclaimed freedom fighter look up to nowadays. In modern liberal “social justice warrior” circles, they would be hailed as the oppressed people who finally rose up to protest the hegemonic system within its own system. Way to go, Panthers.
In spite of this, they may have overshot themselves in California, where the Governor Ronald Reagan and his Republican allies reigned in representative power. These persons were none too happy about the Black Panther demonstrations, and they would not take black youths flaunting their constitutional right to bear arms sitting still. After all, this was still the 1960s. Rosa Parks’ story was just beginning to approach two decades told, and Martin Luther King, Jr. was still alive but fallen from public favor due to his stance about Vietnam. What was the Republican response to this situation that they were unable to constitutionally deny? Answer: Pass state laws restricting the gun carrying of all Californians, therefore sacrificing the constitutional volition of the many to get back at the young black Americans who had come to know the law’s power and use it. Thus, the first of the gun laws that President Obama, liberal progressives, and celeb socialites esteem so much came to be. Ironic, no?
But, why do I bring this history up? Well, recently an extremist pro-militia Mormon family known as the “Bundy brothers” have been in the news for occupying a federal building. Their argument apparently is with the federal government over an issue that I’d rather you guys just read about if you are interested, but it involves land…and also the Mormon belief of the Constitution being a sacred document that was delivered by one of the infinite gods of the universe (specifically the god “God the Father,” the father of the deified man Jesus the Christ). I do this so that it becomes immediately clear that theology matters, especially when people do things in the name of their religion. I also do this as an in-house issue, for the beliefs I cited are mere examples for why Christians don’t acknowledge Mormons as being Christian. There really is a substantial difference (or several) between the two camps. You can see foundations for the Mormon theology in the King Follett Sermon given on April 7, 1844 by Mormon founder Joseph Smith (skip to the “God an Exalted Man” and “A Council of the Gods” sections).
Given the current fascination with microaggressions and white-privilege in some of the circles that I used to be around, and still am connected to, I was exposed to the Bundy story without having accessed any major news source. Then, I was confronted by the many claims on social media that if the persons had been “black” instead of “white” then they all would have been massacred immediately by law enforcement much like in 1770 Boston. Many of these same persons vehemently decried the actions of the Bundys and called for stricter gun laws so that the white racists who have historically run this country (apparently including the Bundys and their supporters) can never exercise their power of political racism the same way again.