Donald Trump recently said that “Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick — if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is. I don’t know.”
This assertion prompted mass shock and outrage in the media, with any number of politicians—including the Hillary Clinton campaign—and other talking heads accusing the Republican presidential candidate of inciting violence and calling for an assassination attempt on Clinton. Trump went on to say he meant that Second Amendment supporters, including the NRA, could make a difference by coming out in large numbers and voting for him in November.
All mudslinging aside, there may be another explanation behind the unprecedented outrage prompted by Trump’s comment.
You see, the one thing every American is indoctrinated in from cradle to grave is that “violence is never the answer.” And why should it be? If we want change, we have the right to vote, speak freely, and even protest peacefully.
But what happens when these rights slowly erode, losing form and meaning? When elections become a circus and the presidency something of an oligarchy; when the voting public has been incrementally dumbed down generation after generation and programmed to vote in certain ways (emotionalism, sensationalism) catered to by the media?
What happens when people forget that free speech and peaceful protests have no intrinsic value in the political arena unless they first have a real capacity to effect change? Words and protests, for words and protests’ sake, serve no purpose—other than to give the illusion of freedom and thus create complacency against encroaching authoritarianism, including of the “liberal” variety.
Many of us, for instance, have been exposing the dangers of Islam for decades now, offering concrete, unassailable proofs concerning that creed’s incompatibility with the West; and many, perhaps the majority of Western people, agree. Yet regardless of their words, votes, and demonstrations, Western governments continue to import millions of Muslims, some of whom go on to massacre the very citizens Western governments are first and foremost charged to protect. European nations like Sweden are already on the verge of collapse thanks in whole to the policies of their governments.
So what are free peoples to do when their governments insist on acting against their interests?
Historically they revolted—such as the Founding Fathers of this nation did in 1776: Americans stopped protesting against the British, took up arms, revolted, and forced change, namely by creating their own nation.
And that may be what the current powers-that-be don’t want remembered: sometimes violence is the only way to bring about reform. History confirms this unfortunate assertion.
What if Trump was suggesting that if a Hillary-led government decided to abolish that ancient American right to bear arms—including as a final defense against said government—Americans need not surrender their arms and go along like sheep.
Is this an incitement to violence? No. It’s seems more an acknowledgment or warning that when push comes to shove—when free speech becomes a meaningless concession to be ignored, when the government regularly violates the interest of the people—revolt often looms in the shadows.
After all, the movers-and-shakers—not the recyclable political puppets set before the public’s eye, but the social engineers, the special interests groups, those who know that disarming a nation is easy if you first disarm it of its reason—have never been and are not now going to be “talked” or “demonstrated” out of power.
Hence why liberal media and elite may, if only subconsciously, be going crazy against Trump: he dared mention—and thus legitimize—the one thing that must never be mentioned, not even as a remote possibility, perhaps because it is the one thing guaranteed to oust them from power and influence: revolution.
Reprinted with author’s permission from Raymond Ibrahim