The Real Reason Trump’s ‘Second Amendment’ Comment Provoked Outrage
What is the real reason behind all the “outrage” at Donald Trump’s Second Amendment comment? During a campaign rally in Wilmington, North Carolina, Trump said, “Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick — if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is. I don’t know.”
Could it be that he touched on the one option -- the one that must never be named -- that actually works against tyrants, including the domineering leftist crybullies currently entrenched in positions of authority: armed revolution?
You see, the one thing every American is indoctrinated in from cradle to grave is that “violence is never the answer.” And why should it be? If we want change, we have the right to vote, speak freely, and even protest peacefully.
But what happens when these rights slowly erode, losing form and meaning? When elections become a circus and the presidency something of an oligarchy; when the voting public has been incrementally dumbed down generation after generation and programmed to vote in certain ways (emotionalism, sensationalism) catered to by the media?
What happens when people forget that free speech and peaceful protests have no intrinsic value in the political arena unless they actually have the capacity to effect change? Words and protests, for words and protests’ sake, serve no purpose -- other than to give the illusion of freedom and thus create complacency against encroaching authoritarianism, including of the “liberal” variety.
Many of us, for instance, have been exposing the dangers of Islam for decades now, offering concrete, unassailable proofs concerning that creed’s incompatibility with the West; and many, perhaps the majority of Western people, agree. Yet regardless of their words, votes, and demonstrations, Western governments continue to import millions of Muslims, some of whom go on to massacre the very citizens Western governments are first and foremost charged to protect; some European nations like Sweden are on the verge of collapse thanks in whole to the policies of their governments.
So what are free peoples to do when their governments insist on acting against their interests?
The answer is as old as man: they revolt -- such as the Founding Fathers of this nation did in 1776: Americans stopped talking and protesting, took up arms, revolted, and forced change, namely by creating their own nation.
And that’s the formula the current powers-that-be don’t want remembered: sometimes violence is the answer, the only way to bring about positive change. This is an ironclad fact of history.
Perhaps Trump was suggesting that if a Hillary-led government decided to abolish that ancient American right to bear arms -- including as a final defense against said government -- Americans need not surrender their arms and go along like sheep.
Is this an incitement to violence? No. It’s an acknowledgment that when push comes to shove -- when words and protests are designed to be ignored, when the government regularly violates the interest of the people -- revolt has traditionally been the answer.
After all, the true movers and shakers -- not the recyclable political puppets set before the public’s eye, but the social engineers, the special interests groups, those who know that disarming a nation is easy if you first disarm it of its reason -- have never been and are not now going to be “talked” or “demonstrated” out of power.
This is an historical, proven fact, and why liberal media and elite are, if only subconsciously, going crazy against Trump: he dared mention -- and thus legitimize -- the one thing that must never be mentioned, not even as a remote consideration, because it is the one thing guaranteed to overthrow them: rebellion.
Hence the media circus of shock, awe, and outrage: it’s all meant to quickly rebury this briefly exhumed and dangerous idea from the public’s eye.