Progressives are advocating for tyranny

Leftists will learn why second amendment rights matter the hard way

I have said many times over, as an ex-leftist, that the primary problem with the left is that they desire a utopia that can never exist. They live in a fantasy land, and advocate for laws, policies, and societal norms on that basis. This is why leftist policies fail, and usually cause more harm than good. We can see this in terms of things like harm reduction, which sounds nice, but in action means we leave addicts out on the street to die, to destroy neighbourhoods, and to endanger those around them. Universal healthcare also sounds nice, but when mandatory, we see situations like those in Canada, where people simply can’t access healthcare at all, and too often die waiting in emergency rooms or on wait lists, because they can’t get the help they need.

Leftist delusion manifests itself as clearly as ever in terms of their framing of second amendment rights, which, in response to the assassination of Charlie Kirk, they have equated to support for murder.

This is yet another deep irony of the left, which claims to oppose “authoritarianism” and “fascism” and “tyranny,” while advocating for laws and policies that are or allow for authoritarianism, fascism, and tyranny. Their approach to Covid and the “vax” mandates is a perfect example of this, as is their opposition to free speech and second amendment rights.

I will start by saying I do not like guns. They scare me. I have begun trying to learn how to use them, because god forbid I ever need to, I want to know how. Whether or not you like guns is not the point. Whether or not you like murder is also not the point. I don’t like murder. I would like to say no one likes murder, but based on the defenses of and even glee expressed at Charlie Kirk’s murder, which I have seen from many strangers and friends over the past few days, I sadly can’t say this. It is all too clear that some people do like murder, provided it happens to people whose views they believe they don’t like. (Whether not they understand said views is beside the point, as clearly many people who claim Charlie Kirk is A Bad Man on account of his views don’t actually understand them.)

So, to those who have claimed Charlie Kirk got what he deserved (and that isn’t this ever so funny haha!) on account of his support for second amendment rights, and the reality that comes along with these rights, allow me to explain something to you:

The second amendment does not exist so that people can murder each other for having opinions they don’t like. The second amendment exists so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government. The second amendment does not exist to protect dangerous criminals (hot tip: murder is a crime), but to protect law-abiding citizens in a democracy. Those of you who claim to dislike tyranny and to like democracy should probably pay close attention here.

Civil liberties, in general, exist so that you can protect yourself against tyranny—from government overreach. They exist so that the government can’t simply take your rights away when they feel like it. The fact that the modern left apparently now opposes civil liberties is strange, to say the least. I have no idea why anyone would advocate against their own rights and freedoms, but here we are.

I saw a number of people sharing a quote from Charlie Kirk this week, reading:

“You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won't have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It's drivel. But I am, I, I — I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational.”

This quote was taken, out of context of course, from a Q&A session during a Turning Point USA Faith event in April 2023. Here is what was said, in full:

AUDIENCE QUESTION: "How's it going, Charlie? I'm Austin. I just had a question related to Second Amendment rights. We saw the shooting that happened recently and a lot of people are upset. But, I'm seeing people argue for the other side that they want to take our Second Amendment rights away. How do we convince them that it's important to have the right to defend ourselves and all that good stuff?"

CHARLIE KIRK: "Yeah, it's a great question. Thank you. So, I'm a big Second Amendment fan but I think most politicians are cowards when it comes to defending why we have a Second Amendment. This is why I would not be a good politician, or maybe I would, I don't know, because I actually speak my mind.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting. I love hunting. The Second Amendment is not even about personal defense. That is important. The Second Amendment is there, God forbid, so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government. And if that talk scares you — "wow, that's radical, Charlie, I don't know about that" — well then, you have not really read any of the literature of our Founding Fathers. Number two, you've not read any 20th-century history. You're just living in Narnia. By the way, if you're actually living in Narnia, you would be wiser than wherever you're living, because C.S. Lewis was really smart. So I don't know what alternative universe you're living in. You just don't want to face reality that governments tend to get tyrannical and that if people need an ability to protect themselves and their communities and their families.

Now, we must also be real. We must be honest with the population. Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty. Driving comes with a price. 50,000, 50,000, 50,000 people die on the road every year. That's a price. You get rid of driving, you'd have 50,000 less auto fatalities. But we have decided that the benefit of driving — speed, accessibility, mobility, having products, services — is worth the cost of 50,000 people dying on the road. So we need to be very clear that you're not going to get gun deaths to zero. It will not happen. You could significantly reduce them through having more fathers in the home, by having more armed guards in front of schools. We should have a honest and clear reductionist view of gun violence, but we should not have a utopian one.

You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won't have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It's drivel. But I am, I, I — I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational. Nobody talks like this. They live in a complete alternate universe.

So then, how do you reduce? Very simple. People say, oh, Charlie, how do you stop school shootings? I don't know. How did we stop shootings at baseball games? Because we have armed guards outside of baseball games. That's why. How did we stop all the shootings at airports? We have armed guards outside of airports. How do we stop all the shootings at banks? We have armed guards outside of banks. How did we stop all the shootings at gun shows? Notice there's not a lot of mass shootings at gun shows, there's all these guns. Because everyone's armed. If our money and our sporting events and our airplanes have armed guards, why don't our children?"

With rights come risk. With freedom comes risk. This is the reality. Unfortunately, as I mentioned earlier, the left doesn’t like reality, which is why they advocate against rights and freedoms. They want more government control, not less. It is because of this reality that I say that, quite literally, the left wants tyranny. They want authoritarianism. They want fascism. They claim otherwise, but the proof is in the reality of what they fight for and against.

That pesky reality strikes again!

If you enjoy and wish to support my work, the best way to do that is by becoming a paid subscriber. I don't want to paywall everything, because, as a writer, I of course want people to read my work. So I am grateful you are here, enjoying my work, either way. That said, I am supported only through my audience and subscribers—paid subscriptions are what allows me to continue to produce writing and my podcast.

Thank you for your support ❤️