The Hypocrisy, Lawlessness and Violence of the Anti-Gun Left

Written by:

Published on: June 14, 2016

It’s been said many times.  Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

This is certainly true of the anti-gun Left, who have a habit of doing the very things they accuse others of doing.

In their wildest fantasies, every gun owner is a “militia guy” running around in the woods, waiting for the day they’re called to march on Washington, DC to forcibly take over the government.

True to form, however, anti-gun partisans completely overlook their own lawlessness.  And they ignore the hypocrisy and violence from the radicals within their midst.

The Carl Rowan Hypocrisy Award Goes to Modern Gun Haters

Several decades ago, a liberal Washington Post columnist, Carl Rowan, stated that “anyone found in possession of a handgun except a legitimate officer of the law goes to jail — period.”

But lo and behold, when a teenager was seen skinny dipping in his pool late one evening, Rowan burst out the back door of his house and shot the kid with his revolver.

Hypocritically, Rowan felt that the “own a gun, go to jail” sentiment didn’t apply to him.

Rowan is no longer alive, but the “Rowanesque” hypocrisy he embodied still lives on.

Recently, a producer for Katie Couric’s anti-gun documentary, Under the Gun, broke several gun laws when he traveled out of state to privately purchase handguns in another state — a federal offense that anti-gun groups are still refusing to condemn.

There is no doubt that this “documentary” was intended to demonize firearms, given how the editors were caught deceptively misrepresenting the answers of pro-gun activists to make it seem like they were stumped by a question.

But the fact that a producer would unashamedly violate the law, in an effort to vilify firearms, is typical of the media’s arrogance.  They demand that honest gun owners obey laws that they have no interest in following themselves.

The Most Violent Speech is Found on the Left

The most startling example of progressive’s hypocrisy is how they can decry supposedly “offensive” First Amendment speech by the political Right, even while ignoring the graphic and violent speech of the Left.

For example, most progressives were mute when one of Vox’s editors recently praised the violence that was directed against Trump supporters in California.

And to date, no conspicuous progressive has taken the Huffington Post to task for praising the supposedly good things that riots produce.

That’s because for many on the Left, violence is a necessary part of social reform.

But then they hypocritically decry anyone on the Right who says it’s better to have free elections than to resort to the “bullet box” — as one GOA spokesman recently stated.

Gun haters jumped on the term “bullet box,” apparently unaware that this terminology has been used for over 100 years.

Frederick Douglass delivered a speech in 1867 when he said that, “A man’s rights rest in three boxes. The ballot box, jury box and the cartridge box.”

And the Supreme Court stated in 2008 in D.C. v. Heller that one of the chief purposes of the Second Amendment is to “resist tyranny.”

Stating that bullet box or cartridge box is the ultimate remedy for tyranny can hardly be put in the same category as the graphic language that Leftists use to attack their political enemies.

Remember when Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) said that, “Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to [put Rick Scott] against a wall and shoot him”?

Or when Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) “joked” about assassinating President George Bush?

There’s a long list of liberal lefties who fantasize evil things for conservative politicians — like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman — and talk about their being shot in the head or gang raped or slit by knives.

Anti-gun Liberals Hate Guns, but Threaten to Use Them Anyway

The speech by the political Left is incredibly violent.  Just look at some of the notes that angry gun haters recently sent to Gun Owners of America.

F— YOU AND YOUR DAMNED BULLET BOX!!  This liberal is a sharp shooter and not a member of your organization. I have NO PROBLEM SENDING A BULLET YOUR WAY!

So apparently it’s bad when someone summarizes Frederick Douglass’ pro-gun comments.  But it’s okay to threaten that person with a bullet to the head. See the hypocrisy?

Here’s another recent email:

You two bit crybabies are in for some big hurt cause the time is rapidly approaching for the 2nd amendment M—– F——- whiners to end up with the muzzle shoved so far up your G– D— a– that s— will spew from your mouth and all will recognize your organization is nothing more than a s— spewing nothingness. Once you start getting off with that muzzle nice and tight up the anus, don’t forget how to pull the trigger!

A lot of misdirected passion.  And not a lot of verbal or grammar skills.

Then there’s this one:

Nobody is taking your guns away, when will that get through your thick skulls. Shove your rifle where the sun don’t shine d— heads!

Nobody is taking our guns away?  Really?  Tell that to the residents of New Orleans who had their guns confiscated.

Or please explain what Hillary meant when she said that the United States should consider Australia’s gun confiscation program in this country?

Those who are on the Right should be encouraged, however, because it’s a good sign when the Left resorts to these kinds of ad hominem attacks.

It means they’ve run out of arguments and would rather demonize their opponents, using Saul Alinsky tactics, rather than try to engage their opponents using facts (which they don’t have).

Do hear the loud shattering sound?  That’s the anti-gunners’ glass house crumbling.

Don't forget to like on Facebook, Google+, & Twitter.
The opinions expressed in each article are the opinions of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect those of
Check out Sons of Liberty Polls on LockerDome on LockerDome
Comment via Facebook
Comment via Disqus