2A

El Paso & Beyond: It’s Not Guns, it’s Moral Ambivalence

El Paso & Beyond: It’s Not Guns, it’s Moral Ambivalence

By Erik Rush •

A disclaimer condemning the wanton mass murder of people in public places shouldn’t be necessary here, yet it is, lest craven leftists seize upon the opportunity to cast this columnist and this publication as endorsing mass murder. Once upon a time in America, it was universally understood that all citizens reviled such action.

These days, I’m not so sure.

So, let me take a moment to officially condemn the actions of Patrick Crusius who, on the morning of August 3, entered a Walmart in El Paso, Texas and commenced a shooting spree that left 22 dead and 24 injured.

It was inevitable that an angry white idiot would pick up a gun and seek out a bunch of Latinos to murder given the climate of racial tension that has been cultivated by the political left and the ongoing situation at our southern border. This may sound somewhat harsh, but if you look at the aggregate of mass shootings in recent decades and the motives of the perpetrators in context, it is far easier to understand.

While the 2019 influx of undocumented migrants laying claim to economic asylum (there’s no such thing) and the 2014 tsunami of undocumented migrants doing likewise both received a great deal of press, the ultimate dispositions of the migrants in question were handled quite differently by the administrations of Presidents Donald Trump and Barack Obama. While the latter’s policy was one of clandestine assimilation, Trump has made no bones about the fact that these people have no legitimate reason to cross our southern border, and ought to be returned from whence they came, post haste.

This of course has given rise to increased charges by the left of racism and anti-immigrant sentiment on the part of the president and his supporters, despite the issue having nothing whatsoever to do with race. At present, there is a campaign under weigh on the part of leftists to draw a direct link between Trump’s rhetoric addressing illegal migrants and the El Paso massacre. An opinion piece from The New York Times masquerading as news on Aug. 4 and entitled “El Paso Shooting Suspect’s Manifesto Echoes Trump’s Language” essentially framed President Trump’s rhetoric as “marching orders” for Patrick Crusius. This is being echoed by far left lawmakers, most notably Joaquin Castro (D-TX).

There’s little doubt that there are a whole lot of white, ordinarily law-abiding firearms owners in the Southwest who are infuriated regarding the porosity of our southern border. It is likely that some have even cultivated antipathy toward Latinos as a result of the economic and social conditions that have arisen as a result of illegal immigration in the region. It is probable however, that nearly all of them realize the decades-long refusal of our federal government to effectively address the issue has played a far larger role in this than the desire of people to enter the country illegally, whatever their reason. Thus, they are aware that gunning down a bunch of Latinos would not only display a high degree of moral ambivalence, but it wouldn’t even address the root of the problem. Further, it would serve to validate the baseless bleating of the left as regards white Americans’ inherent proclivity for racism.

It’s generally imprudent for people such as myself to prematurely issue commentary during the “fog of war” which immediately follows acts of mass violence, as inaccurate information abounds, some of which is intentionally crafted. Suffice it to say that Crusius’s reported statements to law enforcement and his actions following the shootings were markedly incoherent. While his manifesto, posted online prior to the shootings, is definitely racist, it smacks of a person of limited intellect who was operating far more out of anger and cognitive dissonance than an understanding of the dynamics of the border situation.

As far as the El Paso massacre representing a tide of Trump-fostered white nationalism, that argument simply has no teeth. White nationalists have zero political power in this country, and that isn’t likely to change. There were however, 32 mass shootings during Barack Obama’s tenure as president, which included a Muslim man who killed 50 gay people in Orlando, Florida, and a Muslim couple who killed 14 people and wounded 22 others in San Bernardino, California. Muslims, as venerated by our former president and as a favored class of the left, have far more political clout that white nationalists.

Yet violence committed by Muslims and far-left perpetrators (such as the Aug. 4 Dayton, Ohio shootings or the 2017 Congressional baseball shootings) are never framed by the press or Beltway politicos as a national crisis, because it does not serve their purposes.

Finally, as regards the public’s access to firearms, I would point out that there is no correlation between the accessibility of firearms and mass shootings, because that accessibility has always existed. For most of our nation’s history, spree killings with firearms were unknown. If anything, firearms have become increasingly less accessible to citizens over the last 50 years due to knee-jerk legislation which invariably follows high-profile gun crimes.

There is however, an easily-drawn correlation between the increasing climate of moral ambivalence we’ve seen over the last 60 years and the proliferation of mass shootings. Much of what I’ve written in this space over the years has reflected societal dysfunction that has arisen directly from our increasing climate of moral ambivalence.

During a speech at the 2018 National Rifle Association (NRA) convention, Texas Governor Greg Abbott asserted that “[t]he problem is not guns, it’s hearts without God.”

This may sound simplistic, but it speaks volumes.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns

Sheriff warns of second American revolution if gun confiscation laws pass

Sheriff David ClarkeMilwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke warned of a second American revolution if gun control and gun confiscation passed and said he would not enforce laws requiring confiscation in his county while speaking with Alex Jones, Infowars reported Tuesday.

“First of all, to me that would be an act of tyranny,” he said of the gun control measures currently under consideration. “So the people in Milwaukee County do not have to worry about me enforcing some sort of order that goes out and collects everybody’s handgun, or rifles, or any kind of firearm and makes them turn them in.”

“The reason is I don’t want to get shot, because I believe that if somebody tried to enforce something of that magnitude, you would see the second coming of an American revolution, the likes of which would make the first revolution pale by comparison,” he added.

In January, Clarke issued a public safety message urging citizens to get training from a certified gun safety course so they could properly defend themselves.

“I’m Sheriff David Clarke and I want to talk to you about something personal: your safety. It’s no longer a spectator sport; I need you in the game. But are you ready? With officers laid off and furloughed, simply calling 911 and waiting is no longer your best option. You can beg for mercy from a violent criminal, hide under the bed, or you can fight back. But are you prepared? Consider taking a certified safety course in handling a firearm so you can defend yourself until we get there. You have a duty to protect yourself and your family,” he said in the ad.

Across the country, law enforcement officers, state legislators and firearm manufacturers have responded to attempts to pass gun confiscation laws at the federal and state level.

A growing number of gun makers have said, for example, that they would no longer do business with the State of New York after lawmakers passed strict gun control laws.

Responding to a gun confiscation bill in Missouri, a GOP state representative proposed making it a felony to introduce gun control measures.

In Washington State, lawmakers have introduced a bill that would nullify federal gun control laws in that state.

For many, the numerous gun control measures being considered have nothing to do with gun safety, and Sheriff Clarke agreed.

“This is about attacking the Second Amendment, it’s about going after the wrong crowd,” he said. According to the sheriff, much of the violence he sees is not committed by criminals using the guns lawmakers want to ban.

“Government control cannot go on as long as people have some sort of ability to say ‘hey wait just a doggone minute,'” he added. “That’s what the government fears, they don’t really fear the criminals, they support the criminals. What they fear is a law abiding person.”

Posted by Erik Rush in News