Ending Gun Violence Isn’t An Aim Of Antigun Leftists; Its Only a Mere Talking Point

american flag torn

Duplicity And Hypocrisy Abounds Among The Radical Left.

If it were the case that those who claim a desire to curb gun violence truly meant what they say, they would be compelled, at one and the same time, to draw a clear and categorical distinction between proper, appropriate use of firearms and improper, inappropriate, criminal use of firearms.  Acknowledging the fact that millions of law-abiding, sane American citizens, do exercise their right to keep and bear arms for legitimate purposes, millions of time every year. Namely, and most notably, for self-defense; thereby proclaiming the legitimacy of firearms’ use for self-defense.

But, antigun zealots don’t wish to recognize self-defense as a legitimate reason for owning and possessing firearms, and, so, won’t acknowledge self-defense as a legitimate basis for owning and possessing firearms, even if they were to do so only grudgingly.

Further, a rational person would expect these same antigun zealots to condemn vociferously any and all acts of criminal violence even if they are reluctant to admit lawful purposes and uses for firearms. But, while it has always been the case that antigun zealots seek, first and foremost, to disarm the citizenry, albeit under the guise of protecting the public from gun violence, even that platitude has lost efficacy, for, as we have seen, Radical Left antigun zealots do, indeed, support use of firearms and bombs for use in some acts of domestic terrorism, namely those acts—such as attacking and murdering police and Federal ICE officials and destroying Government facilities—that happen to cohere with the Collectivist, Anarchist Marxist/Socialist/Communist agenda, as evidenced by the Spronsen incident, pointed out in the previous segment of this AQ article, citing the Washington Times news story, titled, “Antifa lauds ‘martyr’ who attacked ICE detention center as manifesto circulates.”

We see mainstream Left-wing newspapers, such as The New York Times, deliberately refraining from calling out some acts of domestic terrorism, illustrating clearly enough, then, that many media organizations are clearly in lockstep with the sympathies of the Radical Left who operate both in this country and abroad.

What Is Really Going On Here?

Of course, the exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense, is a perfectly legitimate purpose, as made plain in the 2008 Heller decision. But, for antigun zealots who, at once, invariably sympathize with the goals and agenda of the Radical Left, such an admission weakens their argument, false as it is, that guns are the salient cause of violence in society.

Moreover, as some acts of domestic terrorism are tolerated or condoned, and even applauded and encouraged, as we see with the Willem Van Spronsen incident, it is now becoming impossible to deny—as the fact of the matter is becoming ever clearer, day-by-day—that the Radical Left intends to destroy the very fabric of American society as conceived by the founders of our free Republic.

The Radical Left seeks to jettison our culture, our system of laws, our Constitution, our Judeo-Christian ethos—all of it—in the name of multicultural pluralism, utilizing the newly concocted political devices of identity politics, intersectionalism, and virtue signaling; and promoting as a morally superior idea, a culture of victimhood–all in an attempt to prepare the citizens of this Nation for a life of subjugation, as the Nation is subsumed into a new one-world Government, where the very concept of the ‘Nation-State’ and ‘Citizen of the United States’ both cease to exist; where a once proud Nation is reduced to obscurity, insignificance–a mere cog in the machinery of a new one-world system of governance–and a once-free, proud, and unique People is reduced to abject servitude and penury.

Can the U.S. Supreme Court, as the guardian of the U.S. Constitution, prevent this, even if Congress and the Executive Branch of the Federal Government cannot?

Clearly, the U.S. Supreme Court can, which is why the Radical Left seeks to pack the Court with individuals who have no love for our Constitution–who have little to no compunction about subordinating our Constitution to that of the laws of other Nations and to so-called international norms, thereby paving the way for insinuation of the U.S. into the EU, as precursor to a one-world system of governance, which necessitates loss of our National sovereignty and independence, and subordination of our laws, Constitution, and jurisprudence to an artificial transnational world construct.

Not surprisingly, then, antigun zealots ignore the reasoning of U.S. Supreme Court rulings that contradict their goals and agenda. Hence, they ignore or condemn outright, the reasoning of the Heller Majority along with the high Court’s rulings in that case—viewing Heller as an aberration, if they are asked about Heller at all.

In What Does The Threat To The Collectivist Goal For Effective Repeal Of The Sacred, Fundamental, Inviolate, Unalienable, Natural Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms Really And Truly Rest?

It cannot be overstated that, while the Second Amendment entails the natural right of self-defense—as dealt with at length in Heller—the import of the Second Amendment is directed, first and foremost, to prevent tyranny from arising in this Country—a point also made in Heller. That being so, it is therefore a curious thing that antigun politicians, along with the usual media types, continually scoff at the notion that the American people need to be armed to ward off tyranny—even though it is self-evident, true, that no better check against tyranny exists than the presence of a well-armed citizenry. The founders of our Nation certainly knew this to be so, but few Legislators today bother to acknowledge that fact. Not surprisingly, the Radical Left in this Country, now attack the founders of our Nation even as these same Leftist elements dare claim, disingenuously, inconsistently, and oddly, that they respect our Nation’s laws and Constitution. Perhaps they should take a close look at Heller. And, they would do well to take a close look, as well, at Constitutional Law expert, David Kopel’s article, “Why the anti-tyranny case for the 2nd Amendment shouldn’t be dismissed so quickly,” that appeared, three years ago—and curiously enough—in the progressive weblog, Vox.

Disemboweling the Bill of Rights—particularly the Second Amendment—is the principal aim of Progressive and Radical Leftists. Those that hew to the tenets of Collectivism—disreputable elements, both inside this Country as well as outside it—seek to destroy a proud and free people, and a free Republic.

To accomplish their loathsome end, it is indicative of the unsavory proponents of Collectivism—those who seek to create a new system of governance, eschewing the continued existence of the concept of the Nation-State—to work toward denying to the citizens of our Nation their natural, unalienable, immutable, and inviolate right to keep and bear arms. For, a one-world Government that subjugates entire populations is impossible to accomplish in any Nation where that Nation’s citizenry has, readily available to it, access to firearms.

At ground, the salient and critical purpose of the Second Amendment, as the founders of our Constitutional Republic in their wisdom, did foresee and ever maintained, is to secure the authority and sovereignty of the American people from those who would dare usurp the ultimate, premier authority from wherein it alone belongs: in the American people themselves. Prevention of tyranny is the true, undeniable, and salient, essential purpose of the Second Amendment. And that core purpose is inconsistent with and anathema to the tenets of Collectivism.

Collectivist tenets of Marxism, Socialism, Communism, upon which the Leftist agenda absolutely depends, requires, for its success, the subjugation of the American citizenry. This is a matter impossible for the Internationalist Collectivists to accomplish as long as the Second Amendment of our Nation’s Bill of Rights remains, in all its glory: preserved, robust, strong, absolute, as the founders of our Nation, the creators of our free Republic, a Constitutional Republic—one comprising an autonomous, powerful, armed citizenry—had unequivocally intended.

Arbalest Quarrel

About The Arbalest Quarrel:

Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel’ website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.

For more information, visit www.arbalestquarrel.com.


  1. “…Isn’t An Aim Of Antigun Leftists…”

    hey the political right is every bit as anti-gun as the left – the only difference is that without their “patriotic” constituent base, they would be voted out of office in a new york minute, so they pretend to stand tall as regards the 2nd amendment, all the while waiting for the day when they can unite with the left and actually grab those guns.

  2. Stop saying “Judeo-Christian” as if they’re similar.
    Judaism is the opposite of Christianity, and Jews generally despise Christians.
    In fact, it is jews who are the biggest proponent of disarming us (Soros, Feinstein, Lieberman, Wasserman Schultz, Bloomberg, Blumenthal, Lautenberg, Lowey, Nadler, Harman, Bader Ginsberg & 100 others).
    If my fellow Americans would like to discover what the 50 million Russian Christians who were murdered by Jewish Bolshevism, the real holocaust, just give up your arms.

  3. I do not know why the jewish Bolsheviks fear US gun owner being they are the most heavily armed people in world history and also the most cowardly. americans armed or not have been subjugated and will sit around while their genocide is taking place.THE ONLY WAY TO SAVE THE 2ND AMENDMENT IS TO USE IT AND IT AINT ABOUT HUNTING AND RELOADING

Comments are closed.