Can we sue the authoritarian left for endangering us with gun control? Part II

In the first part of this series, we made the case for legal action against the left. This second part will detail the objectives for this action.

The liberty grabbers of the national socialist left recently tried to have one of their insipid hashtags trend in connection with argument before the Supreme Court with regard to a ridiculous restriction on freedom. Their little line of anti-liberty propaganda was that #GunLawsSaveLives. In point of fact, the Washington Free Beacon reported:

The lawyer defending New York City in a Second Amendment case on Monday admitted to the Supreme Court that the city’s gun restrictions had no impact on public safety and that gun rights extend beyond the home.

As is the case with such restrictions on liberty, these laws only control those who don’t pose a threat, rendering them helpless in the face of real threats from criminals and tyrannical governments. The purpose of taking legal action against the liberty grabbers on the left is to start the conversation on everyone’s unalienable human rights, something they always demand when one of their Utopian concepts only serves to get people killed.

When leftists use the phrase in starting a conversation, it means that they are going to lecture those of us on the pro-liberty right that we have blood on our hands while making demands that we give up more of our unalienable human rights.

Those of use trying to conserve liberty are supposed the act like the character in the movie “Animal House” who screams “Thank you sir, may I have another!” after a swat of the paddle. For them, it’s not a question of freedom, but how fast they can confiscate our means of self-defense.

How does depriving people of their unalienable human rights protect them?

This is the central question here. The fact that the liberty grabbers can never answer it speaks volumes. The best they can offer is their ever-present lie that no one is talking about gun confiscation. It’s something we have proven to be a lie of the first order.

Leftist would like the conversation to be on feelings and scary looking inanimate objects of anodized aluminium and steel. They have desperately avoided a discussion centered on unalienable human rights and liberty. This is why they love it that we indulge them in keeping the debate centered on guns instead of liberty.

We are bringing this up to start a conversation on the pro-liberty right in what to do about the incessant assault from the national socialist left on our freedom. Along those lines, we will detail the targets of these actions on the legal front and the overall purpose of this pro-liberty push-back.

Who do we sue for endangering our lives with controls on liberty?

The lawsuits should be against the left in general because of their actions on several levels as discussed part I.

• They have incessantly worked to deprive the people of their unalienable human rights with a flawed model of societal control.
• They have also denigrated our culture and moral underpinnings, opening the door for societal violence.
• They have also pushed the insane idea of liberty free zones whereby only criminals and the government possess armaments.
• Finally, the national socialist media works overtime to exploit mass murder tragedies to foment an emotional argument for the restriction of liberty.

The nation’s socialist left has continually sought to undermine and eliminate an unalienable human right along with most other individual rights enumerated in the founding documents despite the fact that these do nothing to ensure safety and only serve to enhance their political power.

While the left in general has a tendency to prefer control over liberty, the primary targets of these legal actions would be those who pose the biggest threat to our unalienable human rights. Specifically, this would be the liberty grabber groups themselves and the nation’s socialist media. In the case of the latter, it would be to make a point in the matter on Media Contagion.

The purpose of these lawsuits.

The rationale for taking these actions are multifaceted. Primarily it would be to take the fight directly to the liberty grabbers, forcing them to justify their actions. Secondarily, it would be to fight fire with fire in that they attack organizations of the pro-liberty right to bankrupt them with incessant legal battles.

Despite their vain assertions that they are Democratic or even liberal, the authoritarian left only cares about obtaining power over the people by any means necessary. If that entails thousands of frivolous lawsuits until certain businesses go bankrupt, so be it. They don’t care if they are putting these places out of business or that they are endangering the people. They only care about the success of their collectivist ideology.

As usual, the authoritarian left would prefer a one-sided, emotion based argument, devoid of any logic or reason. Legal action against them would have the pro-liberty side taking the initiative where we would set the terms of the debate, beginning with the fact that guns save more lives than are lost.

The liberty grabber leftists want to keep following the scam of exploiting tragedy to gradually whittle down our unalienable human rights until the day they can virtually confiscate firearms with registration/licensing schemes. That would be followed by actual confiscation. They have made this quite clear over the years.

They don’t care what they have to do to confiscate guns, whether it’s shredding the founding documents or bankrupting those who conserve our liberty. They don’t really care about safety or the children since none of their draconian measures will serve either cause. All they care about is obtaining control over the people, never mind their rights or liberty.

The Bottom-line.

It’s axiomatic that the best defense is a good offence. It’s time that we on the pro-liberty right begin following that. It’s time to take the (rhetorical) fight to the enemies of liberty on the national socialist left.

The liberty grabber leftists don’t really care if they win their lawsuits against arms manufacturers. They merely want to harass and cost them time and money in an attempt to drive them out of business. Why can’t we of the pro-liberty do the same?

Originally published on the NOQ Report