Last week I paid a visit to my orthopedic doctor (“Dr. Rasheed”), whom I hadn’t seen in years. He’s a friendly little chap with a name I’ve never been able to pin to a nationality. I told him I thought maybe he was Jewish when I first met him some years ago, because I vividly recall him using the term “Oy Vay.”
To which he replied, “No, I’m not Jewish, I’m from Iran — but I married a nice Jewish girl from New York.” Too funny.
He then told me that his father had escaped from Iran with his wife and children during the 1979 revolution and came to America. Once settled here, his dad joined the CIA and became a spy, travelling back and forth to Iran. It sounded a bit dangerous for my tastes, but he managed to survive for decades and retired with a distinguished career under his belt.
Dr. Rasheed then pivoted to a philosophical mode and said that what most angers him about the nuclear deal that the U.S. made with Iran is that it gives that country legitimacy. I hadn’t specifically thought about it that way, but he’s absolutely right. You don’t make deals with dictatorships, because it clearly implies that you accept them as legitimate governments.
My doctor went on to say that the bottom line to the Iranian situation is the same as with every dictatorship: It all gets down to who has the guns. In other words, Mao had it right. All the mumbo-jumbo talk politicians engage in is meaningless, because, in the end, the only thing that matters is who has the guns.
Or, as the good doctor put it, when thousands of people were rioting in the streets in Tehran and begging the U.S. to help them, it was a lost cause from the start because the revolutionary leaders had the guns and we had a president who actually wanted the mullahs to keep the masses in check.
Whether it’s Iran, North Korea, or the mid-20th century Nazis, when a small percentage of the population has guns and the rest of the population is banned from owning guns, the majority is helpless. Kind of like Chicago on a larger scale.
Make no mistake about it, the radical-left antigun people dream about completely disarming the population, because once they accomplish that, they don’t have to worry about laws or the Constitution. They hate opposition and they hate free speech, and the barrel of a gun is the best assurance that they will not have to put up with either of those messy issues.
If and when the last gun is confiscated in America, the message will be straightforward: Shut up, sit down, do what you’re told, and don’t complain.
Of course, those who want to get guns permanently out of the hands of law-abiding citizens realize that they have to hide their true intentions by talking about such items as “background checks,” “mental-health issues,” “gun-show loopholes,” “assault rifles,” etc.
It’s reminiscent of Ted Kennedy’s insidious assurances that his illegal Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 “will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.” Very cute, Ted. Very cute.
The modus operandi of the radical left is: Lie, get your foot in the door, then slowly raise the stakes and end up with what you were really after from the very start. It’s deceitful, but it works. Every antigun law is merely a step along the path to total gun confiscation. To think otherwise is naiveté. The best way to avoid this freedom-ending result is to refuse to yield an inch from the outset, regardless of how hysterical and angry progressives may become.
That means not being afraid to point out the main purpose of the Second Amendment. It is not to accommodate hunters; it’s not to allow people to engage in target practice; it’s not even for protection from common criminals.
The main purpose of the Second Amendment is to give citizens the means to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. If we are embarrassed to state, loudly and clearly, what the Constitution actually says, then the case for liberty is lost by default.
What is needed is a national referendum that confirms the true meaning of the Second Amendment — that every citizen, regardless of which state he resides in, has a God-given right to carry any kind of gun he chooses at any time, concealed or open, without permission from any local, state, or federal authority.
Sorry, but I just don’t recall the Founders ever saying anything about a law-abiding citizen needing a permit to carry a gun.