After decades of harassing American gun owners, progressives are having a curious epiphany, of sorts, regarding the Second Amendment. Curious because, while attempting to justify their newfound attraction to firearms, these formerly anti-gun leftists are pinpointing exactly the original intent behind this oft-maligned constitutional right. Apparently, though, they do so without realizing that they undermine almost all their previous arguments against guns.
An article published by Slate on February 11 – written by a married, DC-dwelling lesbian, no less – is a stunning example of a left-winger grasping the central point of the Second Amendment, seemingly without quite understanding she has done so.
The author of the Slate article shall remain unnamed because the intent is not to malign or shame her. Perhaps not even fully comprehending the magnitude of her personal discovery, she bought a handgun for the exact reason every law-abiding American should own at least one firearm – and for the very reason the founders wanted to protect their right to do so. But more about that later.
Guns for Protection? Who Would Have Thought?
An article in Britain’s ultimate establishment and very left-leaning newspaper, The Guardian – published not long after the 2024 US general election – highlighted the surge in “women and LGBTQ+ people” seeking out firearms training. As one might expect from this paper, a distorted and wholly inaccurate picture is painted of women and gays coming increasingly under attack in President Donald Trump’s America. The nasty vitriol of a few crazies like “white nationalist” podcaster Nick Fuentes aside, there’s no real evidence that women or gays are in any greater danger today than they were two or six or ten years ago. Almost every widely reported act of political violence committed in the US since President Donald Trump first entered the White House has seemingly come from the left.
The paper did throw out an interesting quote from a Georgia resident, Ashley Parten, who The Guardian gratuitously described as black and bisexual, as if either of those characteristics mattered except to progressives. “We all feel the need to make sure that we’re aware of our surroundings and protect ourselves in general, but even more so now,” Parten says.
What happened to “you don’t need a gun because the police will protect you,” then? Parten may be suffering from the delusion that complete strangers will instantly know she is bisexual just by looking at her and will physically assault her because of it. That would be an unfortunate state of mind. Still, the point is “we’re aware of our surroundings and protect ourselves in general.” That is the very reason why Americans who choose to carry guns in public do so.
Good for Ms. Parten that she figured it out. After all, she is much more likely to be physically attacked by a mugger or a sexual predator than she is by someone who is upset that she’s black or bisexual.
Second Amendment Cognitive Dissonance
Back to the Slate article, the Second Amendment, and the progressive who finally figured out the point of owning a gun.
Slate promoted the piece with the headline, “Conservatives Are Terrified That People Like Me Are Buying Guns Now. Maybe They Should Be.” Why such a loaded headline? Because Slate editors likely can’t help themselves. So consumed are they with hatred for conservatives, apparently, that they had to suggest the idea of progressives owning guns terrifies them. It does not. Given the left’s propensity for violence, it’s certainly cause for unease. But terrifying? Not at all. Even devoted lefties have a Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. And good for them if they choose to exercise that right.
Then there is the threat implied in the headline. Perhaps conservatives should be terrified. Really? And why would that be, Slate? Do tell.
The thing is, there is nothing in the article about conservatives being terrified – nor anything about why they should be. In fact, the article is simply titled, “My Gun and Me.” The author, who will be known as Ms. C, doesn’t dwell on her assumed dislike or distrust of the president, or Republicans, or conservatives in general. She tells of her cognitive dissonance regarding the Second Amendment.
This isn’t meant as an insult. Cognitive dissonance is the unsettling feeling one experiences when one comes to understand or accept an idea – or even an objective truth – that contradicts what one has always believed. How can this be? Have I been wrong all this time? What am I supposed to think about this? That, in layman’s terms, is cognitive dissonance.
It was a children’s party or playdate at Ms. C’s Washington home. Her friends, the mothers, are there. The kids are causing mayhem, the way overexcited children do – Ms. C has no children of her own. A drink is spilled on an ornate table, and, as she and the mothers open the table to rescue it from the malevolent liquid hell-bent on destruction, a small case is revealed.
There, on top of the case, is a Smith & Wesson owner’s manual. Ms. C’s friends are shocked. She explains in the article what led her to the decision to buy a gun. While the reader might not quite agree with her personal rationale – that the “queer” community is increasingly threatened (though regular Slate readers probably nodded their heads in agreement) – Ms. C exactly nails the purpose of the Second Amendment.
Anti-Gunner Discovers Original Intent
She notes in the article that her handgun is kept unloaded in a locked box and that she had almost forgotten she had it. Ms. C also mentions that she has no ammunition in the house.
Clearly, then, she did not purchase the weapon for home defense. A handgun in a locked case with no ammunition is about as much use for defense as a half-eaten slice of avocado toast. She obviously doesn’t carry it in public, either. So, what is the point?
The author speaks of “the clear threat and increasing reality of political violence“ and about “worst-case scenarios that would have seemed fantastical just months ago, imagining ourselves into a million futures that seem possible and unthinkable in equal measure.” Ms. C goes on to observe:
“If you would have told me five years ago that I might take reasonably seriously the possibility that a real-life scenario might someday incite me to use [the gun], I would have called you insane. But the social and political conditions of American life are changing with alarming speed.”
Just like that, the writer – and perhaps many other progressives who found the idea of civilians owning guns abhorrent and frightening – discovered, maybe without realizing, the core purpose of the Second Amendment. It was never about hunting. It wasn’t really even about carrying a firearm to protect oneself from people with criminal intent – though both reasons have been considered valid since the Founding, an interpretation clarified and upheld by the Supreme Court. No, the Second Amendment was crafted and ratified for the just-in-case moment: Just in case your government turns on you. Just in case your fellow Americans from another state, convinced they must coerce you into adopting their beliefs and values, come for you. It was adopted so that all law-abiding Americans can defend against tyranny – just in case.
That’s why Ms. C bought a gun. Though she may not have consciously acknowledged it, she acquired that firearm because she believes people can and should have the ability to protect their rights, their freedoms, their beliefs, and their person from those who would forcibly deprive them of those things.
This was an awakening to the true intent of the Second Amendment. One can only hope that, going forward, the progressives who now wrestle with this revelation will be less inclined to tell their compatriots that no one needs a gun.
.jpg&w=1920&q=75)
.jpg&w=1920&q=75)
