Exclusive: The Long March

By David Codrea

“Women gather to call NRA racist, accuse them of inciting violence against minorities,” a BizPac Review headline advised its conservative readership. The article demonstrated that not one protester could cite a single instance of racism or one call for violence, but since when does a lynch mob need evidence to trigger blind fury?

Producing such evidence was not a requirement for thousands of “mainstream” articles promoting and sympathizing with the hundreds of anti-armed citizen fanatics at the 17-mile “Women’s March” from National Rifle Association headquarters in Fairfax, Va., to the Department of Justice in D.C. in July. Outraged by the continued legality of the right to keep and bear arms, their real mission was to showcase their demand for the government to take it away—that and to smear the motives and the character of any who might disagree.

Of course that isn’t how they explained themselves. Calculating collectivists ginning up useful idiots are nothing if not skilled at framing the terms, coming up with slick euphemisms like “common sense gun safety laws” and “reasonable regulations” to eviscerate the Second Amendment. They also know how to portray themselves as the injured party following an attack that they started, which probably goes a long way toward explaining why they’re so hostile to the concept of self-defense.

The excuse for the march—and they’d have come up with a different one had current events not handed them an exploitable “justification” perfect for stirring up divisiveness and rage—was the NRA was not forthcoming with a statement of condemnation for the shooting death of a black concealed carrier by a police officer during a traffic stop. Supposedly compounding that, NRA spokesperson Dana Loesch, who called the shooting “a terrible tragedy that could have been avoided,” also made a video decrying destructive “progressive” rabble-rousing, asserting “the only way to stop this violence of lies is with the clenched fist of truth.”

Thus the NRA promotes violence against anyone who isn’t white. Either that or actual violent racists project their own twisted malice onto those they hate. Being committed collectivists, they’re counting on media allies not to remind people the raised fist was the symbol for the Industrial Workers of the World, an early 20th Century experiment in Chicago-style “community organizing” founded by socialists, anarchists and Marxists.

And being committed gun-grabbers, they’d just as soon no one draws attention to all those fists in the rainbow logo of One Pulse for America. That’s a new LGBT-oriented anti-gun group founded by actor George Takei of Mr. Sulu of Star Trek fame as a response to Orlando’s Pulse nightclub massacre. That the killer, reportedly a sexually-confused Islamist, took advantage of a “gun-free” environment to execute his bloodbath, and was only stopped when men with guns (the police) shot him does not matter when you’ve got an agenda to push. The guilty parties here are clearly guns, homophobes and the NRA, at least if you listen to Takei and his “media director,” a former flack for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (formerly the National Coalition to Ban Handguns).

Likewise, NRA is to blame for the shooting used as a pretext for the Women’s March to rally around, even though the organizers never quite got around to explaining how a group that wants the police to be the only ones with guns can logically blame non-LEOs for a police officer shooting a citizen. Don’t try to make sense out of that—if advocates for “common sense gun laws” had any, they’d be promoting “shall not be infringed.”

They don’t couch it as gun-grab advocacy, though. They couch it as NRA failing to promote equal “gun rights” for all, a demonstrable lie if there ever was one, albeit it does pique the curiosity to see who would tender such outrageous claims.

Women’s March co-chair Tamika Mallory is a study in such contradictions. Her idea of promoting the right to keep and bear arms equally for all includes working with the Obama administration on citizen disarmament plots, advising Joe Biden on crafting and passing such edicts, and serving on a wealth redistribution committee for socialist New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio to funnel $20 million annually to “gun violence prevention organizations” (which somehow never seem to prevent any “gun violence”).

For Mallory it’s personal, due to what she calls losing her son’s father to “gun violence.” What Women’s March media cheerleaders won’t cover is that, per Jenn Jaques at BearingArms.com, he was a known drug dealer who reportedly stole firearms and drugs from fellow dealers and was shot to death in retaliation when his vengeful associates caught him and one of his captors balked at slitting his throat.

Now there’s a clear case for disarming you! And despite Mallory’s stated position, “We don’t want to prohibit folks from exercising their Second Amendment rights,” the only “gun law” that would have any effect on that scenario would be a total and inviolable monopoly of violence for the state, that is, totalitarianism. But at least she wants it applied equally over all (or says she does).

The other “big name” behind the Women’s March is “Palestinian-American activist” Linda Sarsour, a professional malcontent and promoter of “non-assimilation” for Islamic immigrants, and so naturally a media darling.

“I wish I could take their vaginas away—they don’t deserve to be women,” Sarsour snarled in response to a female genital mutilation survivor who now advocates for Muslim women’s rights. She also praised an imam tied to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and supports a convicted cop killer who escaped to Cuba. So when Sarsour angrily called for “jihad” and normal people understandably responded with condemnation, she used that as an excuse to lash out at their “Islamophobia” and bigotry for presuming she wasn’t talking about the “peaceful” kind.

These sound like just the people we ought to be giving up our guns for, wouldn’t you agree?

If you wouldn’t, billionaire control freak Michael Bloomberg’s Moms Demand Action would, although how that imam Sarsour lauds would feel about them in pink “pussy hats” and out of burqas remains unstated. No matter, because those exploiting them are in no danger, at least as long as that Bill of Rights they’re eroding remains intact (and fully taken advantage of by “progressive” elites).

“Turns out a number of Women’s March leaders are walking with armed security and protective vehicles,” Katie Pavlich reported at Townhall.com. “Leftist agitators like Linda Sarsour and Shannon Watts hiring armed protection while demanding the rest of us turn in our guns into government bureaucrats is nothing new.”

The Long March was a retreat by the Red Army trying to evade Chinese Nationalist forces that nonetheless served to enhance the prestige of Mao Tse-tung, enabling his ascension to unchallengeable power, the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. The analogies to “progressivism” and “fundamental transformation” seem almost eerie.

“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun,” Chairman Mao understood.

The framers of the Constitution understood that, too, which led to the adoption of the Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights as conditions for ratification. It’s up to “we happy few,” we appreciative heirs to the Blessings of Liberty, to stop subversives and fools from marching over and trampling both it and us in their long, step-by-step march to tyranny.

Read More Rights Watch Articles

6 thoughts on “Exclusive: The Long March

  1. DJ Alperoviz

    while he IWW used the collective fist to show solidarity it was the folded arms that represented the overall stance of the organization

    Reply
  2. Bill Cawthon

    I became a gun owner for the first time nearly 47 years ago. I am a member of the National Rifle Association and a contributor to its Institute for Legislative Action and the NRA Foundation. I am a supporter of the Second Amendment and do believe that it confirms a pre-existing, individual right to keep and bear arms. I oppose the gun control measures that have been advanced but not because I consider the proponents to be “collectivists.” I oppose them because they have been shown to be ineffective, placing unnecessary burdens on law-abiding citizens without producing a measurable reduction in crime.

    That being said, I regard Mr. Codrea’s comments to be more fuel for a fire that is already burning too hot. Vilifying those who favor gun control as communists (or collectivists), or socialists is no different than gun control activists labeling millions of gun owners as “gun nuts” or “ammosexuals.” It merely serves to widen the gap that exists between the two sides.

    There is a wealth of easily accessible information that supports the gun owners’ positions. Some of this is the same data that gun control proponents manipulate to push their agenda. A straightforward statement of the actual statistics, without partisan interpretation, clearly shows the disconnect between myth and reality. Our response to media-fueled hysteria and political posturing should be a clear and well-supported statement of facts, not a diatribe that seeks only to demean our opponents.

    There is a high road and it can be ours – but only if we are willing make the effort to claim it.

    Reply
    1. Jack Moore

      “If ye love wealth better than liberty,
      the tranquility of servitude
      better than the animating contest of freedom,
      go home from us in peace.
      We ask not your counsels or your arms.
      Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
      May your chains set lightly upon you,
      and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”

      Reply
  3. Roger Jerry

    This reply is in response to Mr. Cawthon’s comment above:

    While I understand your concern regarding vituperative name calling, many gun control advocates do meet the definition of collectivist or socialist. I am not sure how many are communists, but (and I’m sorry I do not know the source of this quote), “A socialist is merely a communist who has not found their Kalashnikov yet.” It is never abusive to call a thing by its true name.

    Mr. Cawthon, you seem to believe that the anti-gun organizations are reasonable, and it is possible to sit down and reason with them, like that “conversation” they are always suggesting. As a former resident of New York as well as Massachusetts, let me assure you that you can give them anything they ask for, and the next legislative session they will be back with new demands. Also, the leaders of these organizations know that their proposals will have no positive effect on public safety, and may worsen it. It’s only their followers and “useful idiot” clergymen who actually believe gun and magazine bans, “universal” background checks, etc. will be beneficial. At the top levels the goal is to abolish the private ownership of firearms. Several times, in unguarded moments, leaders like Shannon Watts have let this goal slip out.

    That other National Rifle Association, in the United Kingdom, decided to be “reasonable.” Now legal firearms ownership in Britain is hanging by a thread. Meanwhile criminals in Britain are finding ways to obtain firearms. As they are facing a cowed and passive populace they seldom have to shoot.

    Being polite with people who despise you and want to crush your freedom avails you nothing, nor does being “reasonable” when they are defining what “reasonable” means. Go ahead and fight by Marquess of Queensberry rules and watch your freedoms evaporate.

    Reply
  4. Carlos Perdue

    In reply to Bill Cawthon:

    Nice try but you’re an admitted “liberal”, i.e. a twinkletoed communist.

    See www [dot] usconcealedcarry [dot] com [slash] katie-couric-brainwashed-ignorant-liar-stupid [slash] [#} comment [-] 2715528098

    Plenty of gun grabbers have used NRA membership to cover their gun grabbing including GmbH W Bush, who imposed the FIRST “assault weapon” ban, the import ban.

    You can’t be a “cheap labor” dhimmigration ” RINO let alone a “liberal” and still honestly claim to support gun-rights, since your immigration polices are handing permanent hegemony to the gun-grabbing Dhimmicrats.

    And YOU don’t support gun rights at all since you’re admittedly just a prag. Therefore as soon as someone comes up with a compelling prag argument for how gun control can “WORK”, you will betray us.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

(Spamcheck Enabled)

~