Their Own Worst Enemy: Leftist Disarmament Agenda Concentrates Guns in Hands of ‘Tyrannical’ Trump

Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign. (Photo: Gage Skidmore/WIkimedia Commons)

President Donald Trump’s national emergency declaration last week prompted the most predictable deluge of editorials since Parkland, all with the same basic message: The President is one executive order away from Adolf Hitler.

“Trump’s national emergency declaration once again highlights his affinity for strongmen — and authoritarianism” declared the Washington Post’s Eugene Scott. The Atlantic’s Elizabeth Goitein believes the President is “eager” to push the United States towards “authoritarianism,” and the New York Times’s editorial board claims Trump’s “executive overreach” will “damage American democracy” for decades to come.

This is nothing new for the mainstream media. They’ve been accusing the President of authoritarianism almost since his first day in office. But the media and leftist politicians have also pushed an anti-gun agenda radically inconsistent with their belief in Trump as dictator-in-chief.

Take Eugene Scott, for example. Four months prior to calling the President an authoritarian, he penned another op-ed highlighting the “broad” support for stricter federal gun control laws. Among the specific policies he mentions (and tacitly supports), he includes a proposal that would bar anyone on a federal watch list from purchasing a firearm.

SEE ALSO: Democratic Party Official Says 2A Supporters are ‘Homegrown Terrorists’

“Bowers [the murderer in the Pittsburgh synagogue massacre], who had 21 guns registered under his name, was not on any federal watch list,” Scott notes. “Most Americans would have supported him not being able to buy guns had he been.”

Scott might be unfamiliar with how federal watch lists work, but most are controlled by, well, federal agencies. These agencies are controlled by the executive branch, whose head is—drum roll please—Donald “Benito Mussolini” Trump.

Scott, in other words, wants to grant a future dictator the near-unilateral power to disarm the American people.

What?

A Common Refrain

Scott isn’t alone. Anti-gun leftists writ large hold the same contradictory positions, but it’s amazing how many individual writers, editors, and politicians have called Trump a dictator one month and called for disarmament the next. Here’s a run-down of just a few:

  • David Frum: In March of 2017, The Atlantic’s David Frum imagined a nightmare scenario in which President Trump oversees a massive authoritarian state that resembles the Soviet Union more than the United States. In May of 2018, Frum penned an op-ed entitled “It’s the Guns” in which he blames school massacres on “American gun culture.”
  • William Saletan: In October of 2017, Slate’s William Saletan called for banning bump stocks, trigger modifications, high-capacity magazines, and, possibly, all semi-automatic firearms. In February of 2019, Saletan called President Trump’s State of the Union address “dangerous” and said it was “laced with authoritarianism.”
  • Eugene Robinson: In February of 2018, the Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson published a piece titled, “The issue is not mental health. The issue is the guns.” Robinson blames the Parkland massacre entirely on the murderer’s access to an AR-15, stating “there would have been no tragic shooting in Parkland… if a troubled young man had not gotten his hands on a military-style assault rifle and as much ammunition as he wanted.” One year later, in February of 2019, Robinson called Trump an “authoritarian” who has violated his oath to protect and defend the Constitution.
  • Nancy Pelosi. In March of 2017, then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi accused Trump of using “the tool of an authoritarian.” In February of 2019, Pelosi co-sponsored a ban on “assault weapons.”
  • New York Times Editorial Board: Exactly one year before declaring the President an authoritarian in the op-ed noted above, the NYT Editorial Board, ran a piece entitled, “Will American Choose Its Children Over Guns?” In it, the authors extol the “sensible young people” who would later take to the streets and the cable news networks pushing their gun ban agenda. The piece concludes, “Just how can anyone not heed their pained voices?”

I could go on, but you get the idea.

The inconsistency here is so obvious it’s laughable. If Trump is an authoritarian, why would these journalists and politicians push for policies that concentrate the means of force into the hands of the federal government? With each federal law that erodes Second Amendment rights, anti-gun officials give Hitler, Jr., greater means to subjugate the American people.

Is Trump a Flash in the Pan?

Assuming these individuals aren’t simply, uh, mentally incapacitated, they might justify their contradictory positions in a few ways.

I’m sure many believe that Trump is a flash in the pan. The next election cycle will reinstate the kinder, gentler society we enjoyed under President Obama, and we’ll no longer have to worry about an abusive, overreaching federal government.

Putting aside Democratic candidates who hope to impose a massive, top-down restructuring of the American economy (like a dictator), the idea that Trump and his “deplorables” will fade into the sunset is anything but assured. A Democratic win by Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, or Joe Biden may even spark a more severe backlash than what we saw in 2016.

Leftists worry about this exact thing, which makes their anti-gun position even more absurd. Former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, for example, published an op-ed in the New York Times fretting about the rise of “authoritarian capitalism.” If we don’t fix serious flaws in our society, Rudd argues, we might be looking at Trump 2.0 in the very near future.

SEE ALSO: Democratic Rep: ‘Don’t Want to Give Up Your Guns? We’ll Nuke You!’

Leftist gun-banners might also argue that firearms won’t do much good against the threat of authoritarian regime posted by President Trump. We saw this line of thinking last November from California Rep. Eric Swalwell, who threatened to nuke those who resist federal power.

David Frum (mentioned above) posed a more nuanced version of this argument in his article outlining Trump’s authoritarian tendencies.

Those citizens who fantasize about defying tyranny from within fortified compounds have never understood how liberty is actually threatened in a modern bureaucratic state: not by diktat and violence, but by the slow, demoralizing process of corruption and deceit. And the way that liberty must be defended is not with amateur firearms, but with an unwearying insistence upon the honesty, integrity, and professionalism of American institutions and those who lead them.

He’s not wrong about one thing: modern tyranny often takes the form of bureaucratic overreach. What he forgets is the threat of physical violence that forms the foundation for that overreach. Resisting via proper legal channels is great… until it isn’t. What happens when the “modern bureaucratic state” becomes immune to peaceful protest or legal action? Those fortified compounds might start to look more appealing.

Take Venezuela, for example. We’re a long way from that disaster, but where will we be in 100 years? As we reported in December, some Venezuelans are beginning to understand how a once-popular civilian disarmament bill has allowed pro-regime paramilitary militias to run roughshod over unarmed citizens. Today’s government overreach may take the form of non-elected bureaucratic fiat, but that may not always be the case.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not the one arguing we’re descending into a post-apocalyptic hellscape: leftist members of the anti-gun media are. But they’re also arguing, on the brink of this disaster, that we should give up our means of self-defense.

The inconsistency of these positions is, in my mind, the strongest evidence that these individuals are intentionally overstating the threat of Trump’s authoritarianism for attention or political gain. They’re trying to scare their base into action. If they truly believed the President capable of authoritarian takeover, they’d be much more hesitant to surrender the best means of defense against that takeover.

Or maybe they’re just, uh, mentally incapacitated. That’s always possible, too.

***Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! All Local Sales are FREE!***

About the author: Jordan Michaels has been reviewing firearm-related products for over two years and enjoying them for much longer. With family in Canada, he’s seen first hand how quickly the right to self-defense can be stripped from law-abiding citizens. He escaped that statist paradise at a young age, married a sixth-generation Texan, and currently lives in Waco.

{ 19 comments… add one }
  • Rep March 2, 2019, 11:50 pm

    Look People,
    Socialist, Leftist, Republican, The Constitution is the United States!
    Its not just about the GUN or ONE amendment, it’s the CONSTITUTION itself, PERIOD !!
    It’s ours, it belongs to the People of the United States !
    Not the Socialist elite or other rich or the power mongers or any other asshole that thinks they are better than this country. The United States is the last of the absolute free world. This again meaning, The Constitution is the people of the United States and that being as it is We as our fore fathers will not crawl on our knees and watch you take it apart.
    As long as the “Constitution stands” and even if illegal law is made against it “The people will commit as did our fore fathers”. We will be Buried Free Patriots before living as socialist pigs.

  • AJ March 2, 2019, 9:29 am

    But wait, pelosi said that Republican officials were afraid of power… Saying they have an “aversion to governance” or some such nonsense. So which is it?

  • Sofaking1337 March 1, 2019, 6:30 pm

    One political party masquerading as two. Trump isnt your friend by banning anything related to firearms.

    Also bringing up nukes as a retort is comical. If the government has ordered a drone strike let alone a nuke even it being tactical has already lost the fight.

    Dont let them take yours away, you are going to need them.

  • rouge March 1, 2019, 3:57 pm

    It’s not just the wall that worries democrats or anyone else in their right mind. It’s Trump hugging up to Putin, it’s Trump paying off his hoars, it’s Trump constantly making up stuff just to stir up folks who believe anything a liar will say. You can see if you really look with your mind that Trump would like to be a dictator like putin, but thank god he can’t. What do Democrats fear about the wall? They fear it will limit what our country has been all about in the past, Freedom! Freedom for people fleeing for their very lives! People trying to escape extreme and deadly poverty for themselves and their children. Do you think they really want to travel 1000 or more miles from their homelands and all that they know! They are dying! DYING! and all republicans want to do it keep them out. Trump has no love for the poor, dying or helpless. It’s all about money and business. We as Americans can do better than that and be better than that. Yet some would seem to love to kill Democrats for want to help our neighbors. Many have lost their sense of caring about others!

    • james tedesco March 3, 2019, 3:02 pm

      You are one of those “useful idiots” , unrestricted open borders are destroying our country. If these poor hungry people want to live in America, then why do they bring their countries flag and speak their native tongue. They don’t want to become Americans, they just want to rape our country for all the free stuff we give them. Don’t believe me, eliminate all the freebies and require them to speak English and see how many will still want to come here!

    • Jim March 8, 2019, 7:04 pm

      Why is it MY responsibility to deal with people that try to enter our country illegally? Why is it the U.S.’s responsibility for the “humanitarian crisis” at the border? One that we didn’t create and one that we have informed those considering such a journey that they would not be able to just waltz right into the country without going through the proper immigration process? Why??? I don’t mind throwing a drowning man a life preserver, but if he drags me down and drowns me as well, I’m less inclined to give my charity.

  • davud March 1, 2019, 11:22 am

    Trump is no less anti-gun than the Democrats. We saw that in his words after Parkland, where he called for extrajudicial confiscation. The difference is, he’s willing to trample much more of the Constitution to achieve disarmament – the fifth and 14th amendments as well as the second. His disdain for the legislative process to achieve his vision of curbing gun rights supports the idea he’s a much more authoritarian threat.

    And the problem with the theory that private gun ownership is a hedge against tyranny is it only works if gun owners can recognize tyranny. In the Trump era, they’ve shown they can’t. Trump says, “Take the guns first, go through due process second.” This advocates exactly the kind of overreach that gun owners rightly fear – and it comes from the single most powerful person in government, not some pipsqueak legislator in some backwater statehouse – and yet people like S.H. Blannelberry make excuses for Trump.

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/03/01/trump-confiscate-guns-first-go-due-process-second/
    https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/trump-gun-confiscation/

    Not to mention that the hollowing out of the American middle class represents an economic tyranny that’s been in our face for two generations, and where has the armed answer to that been? Tyrants are greedy for power, and money is power, and the ones diligently purchasing government to better rip off working people don’t care if we have guns, because those guns have no power against their brand of tyranny – or at least, gun owners haven’t shown they can even recognize it, far less take action against it.

  • Dexter Winslett March 1, 2019, 11:06 am

    In 25 years of police work I never shot anyone, yet I look so forward to killing democrats when they try to take our guns away. Water the tree of liberty.

  • Maha March 1, 2019, 10:45 am

    It never ceases to amaze me that when the Left levies a criticism against its “foes”, it basically outlines its own position and the dangers that rise from that position. If President Trump was the antithesis of liberty the Left suggests, he, not they, would be confiscating guns in mass, just as all dictators have done in history. The Left points the way toward their own paradise of full State control–of everything.

  • Robert J. Lucas March 1, 2019, 9:58 am

    Let us not forget the first two amendments of the Constitution of The United States of America.
    Amendment One:
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    Amendment Two:
    A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
    Anti-constitutionalist’s sense of morality is situational, based on incident and emotion, instead of rooted in God’s word and law.
    Anti-constitutionalist’s stand for nothing. The situation determines their support for an issue and their emotions rule, not reason and rationality.
    Moreover, they recognize the contradiction, but still cling to their situational justice. Situational justice is the tool of dictators, tyrants, despots, and unjust, unrighteous monarchs. It has no place in a free constitutional republic. In which the United States of America is……………….
    The Globalist, Government controlled media grasping for straws to sensationalize unimportant issues, proves to me just another diversion of what is really going on in this nation.
    Stop demonizing the children of this nation, along with making every Anti-Constitutionalist individual/organization victim!

    Socialism>Communism>Gun Control=Disarmament=Extermination…
    The Impoverished Deadly Agenda…As history has proven….

    “Seemingly Utopian pacifists are free to profess their love of a weapon-free world, but they must start by disarming the evil, criminal and tyrannical. Disarming the public is a vent for their twisted fear and hatred, a grotesque affront to freedom, and unacceptable. Disarming an innocent person is an act of violence.”

    “Guns save lives. Guns stop crime. Guns are why America is still free.”

    Anti-constitutionalism sense of morality is situational, based on incident and emotion, instead of rooted in God’s word and law.
    Anti-constitutionalism stands for nothing. The Anti-Constitutionalists’ situation determines their support for an issue and their emotions rule, not reason and rationality.
    Moreover, they recognize the contradiction, but still cling to their situational justice. Situational justice is the tool of dictators, tyrants, despots, and unjust, unrighteous monarchs. It has no place in a free constitutional republic. In which the United States of America is……………….

    • Derek March 2, 2019, 7:16 am

      “A well regulated militia…”

      Look up the meanings of regulated and militia. Given a socialist Supreme count, we’d have to expect being limited to only 5.56mm, 7.62 NATO and 9mm. That would keep the logistics cost down when every gun owner has to report for training and maneuvers once a month.

      Seriously, if the government wanted to wage war against its people it would just seize control of the ammo factories, stop imports and shut the gas refineries. Your hand cast. 38spl ain’t gonna make the difference. We’d be eating each other in a month….and, since we’d then be terrorists, within their rights as they choose to read them.

      Use the only useful weapon you have. Vote!

      • Bobs your uncle March 4, 2019, 7:29 pm

        Derek
        Thats it, look on the bright side, sadly you are probably right.

  • Rangemaster11B March 1, 2019, 9:56 am

    I must disagree. We are not 100 years away from a Venezuela scenario, we are one presidential election away. The Jackasses know that the 2nd Amendment is the greatest impediment to their socialist utopia.

  • Huapakechi March 1, 2019, 9:13 am

    Those who advocate disarming the citizens of the United States (in contravention of the Constitution and in direct violation of their oaths of office) deliberately ignore the history of a disarmed civilian population, and particularly the ongoing tragedy taking place in venezuela.

    • Penrod March 1, 2019, 7:29 pm

      I think that’s a reasonable and charitable position, but here is another and less charitable: they are highly aware of what can be done to a disarmed civilian population, and they relish the prospect.

    • JD March 2, 2019, 12:28 am

      They’re not ignoring it, they’re mimicking it, purposefully, because while their ideas are stupid, and they get stupid people to believe them, many of them are not stupid, not to include AOC.

      Look at today vice the lead up to WWII:
      Democratic Socialism->National Socialism (Nazi); socialism requires people to abdicate their freedoms to the government, centralizing and strengthening the govt power and control

      Antifa->Brown Shirts; somebody to keep dissenters in line by force and terror

      Jews->white males; somebody to blame for all the world’s problems so power can be united to oppose them

      Gun confiscation->gun confiscation; they don’t want their newly gained power to be threatened

  • Jerry Jones March 1, 2019, 8:24 am

    Politicians NEVER Learn…… Afghanistan (militias) held off the 2 Major Super Powers in the modern World (USSR, USA) from victory for decades with outdated surplus military hardware…… If they think subjugating a citizenry in possession of 300 million+ firearms is a slam dunk they’re a ridiculous as they appear….. Do they really expect the vastly conservative members of the military to follow “unlawful orders” to fire upon their own countrymen?… Good Luck Washington DC ……Bring it on

  • joefoam March 1, 2019, 8:10 am

    Wait, Didn’t Obama order an air campaign against Libya without congressional approval. I think that it might be a little more aggressive to attack another nation as compared to building a wall to protect our own. Still haven’t heard a logical argument for not having a wall to begin with. We already have a semblance of one, why can’t we complete the job?

    • Huapakechi March 1, 2019, 9:15 am

      A wall would interfere with the drug and slave trade across the border. It would also cut down on the number of potential democrat voters as they anticipate forcing through another amnesty.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend