Why are liberals so violent?

The guy yesterday that held people hostage at Discovery Channel making demands that they “save the planet” by having a programing agenda that advocated for the voluntary extinction of humans (thanks to Ry for sending me the link to his webpage) will be dismissed as a nut case. This is probably valid but perhaps further consideration should be given to the topic. Don’t forget that not only did this nut case base his philosophy on the work of Al Gore but so did Ted Kaczynski.

We have known for a long time that anti-gun activists have strong violence tendencies. And such things as John Cusack’s “I AM FOR A SATANIC DEATH CULT CENTER AT FOX NEWS HQ AND OUTSIDE THE OFFICES [OF DICK] ARMEY AND NEWT GINGRICH-and all the GOP WELFARE FREAKS” is not all that uncommon.

And of course all the great genocides of the last century were under leftist regimes.

The Animal Liberation Front, and Earth Liberation Front are two of the top domestic terrorist organizations in the U.S. and are, obviously, liberal. Add in the Weather Underground, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, Symbionese Liberation Army, and lots of other leftist terrorists going back to at least the 1960s and you realize that while they don’t have a monopoly on illegal violence they dominate to such an extent they might as well have a monopoly.

Why are liberals so violent?

My hypothesis is that at some level they know that is the only method by which they can achieve their goals. They, almost by definition, believe in the power of government to “do good” no matter what domain they enter into. They believe in central planning and “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” But as George Washington said, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master.” Government is force. It is violence. Every dictate of the government is backed up with people with guns who job it is to force compliance.

Those who want to expand government, by definition, want to expand the use of force to achieve their goals. It should therefore come as no surprise that liberal individuals and groups are inclined to use violence to further their goals even outside the domain of government.

This also might explain why most liberals are opposed to the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. It explains why they keep insisting, long after the courts have ruled otherwise, that the Second Amendment only protects the power of a state to arm itself independent of the Federal government. The explanation is that they see the willingness inside themselves and those they associate with to use violence and they fear it. They believe they, and everyone else, might use violence in an unethical manner if allowed the tools and the opportunity. They believe in the wisdom of “the central committee” to temper the violent impulses they believe the individuals to have.

This might also explain why liberals accuse the others of violence tendencies. They are projecting the worst fears about themselves onto their opponents.

These violent tendencies can be dealt with at the individual and small group level via the police and the legal system and amount to noise in the big picture of things. It’s at the governmental level that we have genocides with millions dead in the span of a few years. It is at the government level that we must enforce strong restrictions on their power to deliver violence against individuals. This is why we have a constitution that (by design, not in practice) limits governments to a small set of enumerated powers and the Second Amendment to stop a runaway government from becoming tyrannical. One might even be able to make the case that the Second Amendment isn’t only not about hunting–it’s about protecting us from liberals.

Update (6/16/2016): The Orlando Florida gay nightclub shooter was a registered Democrat.

More examples from here:

MassShooters

In 1865 a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln.. President of the United States.

In 1881 a left wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield President of the United States who later died from the wound.

In 1963 a radical left wing socialist shot and killed John F. Kennedy President of the United States.

In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States.

In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of the United States.

In 1984 James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant.

In 1986 Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.

In 1990 Jame Pough a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office….

In 1991 George Hennard a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 23 people in a Luby’s cafeteria in Killeen , TX.

In 1995 James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.

In 1999 Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 8 people at a church service.

In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush President of the US.

In 2003 Douglas Williams a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.

In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung – Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech.

In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others.

In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.

In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis.

In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza..shot and killed 26 people in a school in Newtown CT.

Sept 2013.. an angry Democrat shot 12 at a Navy ship

1968 James Earl Ray… worker in George Wallace’s presidential campaign(Democrat), shot and killed Martin Luther King…..`

June 2016 Registered Democrat, Omar Mateen, murdered 49 people and wounded more than 50 others at the Orlando nightclub Pulse.

8 thoughts on “Why are liberals so violent?

  1. I believe that, aside from fearing unethical use of violence, or “projecting their worst fears about themselves”, they are more worried about limiting their opponents ability to RESIST the power of government since:

    “They, almost by definition, believe in the power of government to “do good” no matter what domain they enter into.”

    “Those who want to expand government, by definition, want to expand the use of force to achieve their goals.”

    Removing their opponents ability to resist would go far toward moving their agenda forward.

  2. I know this isn’t PC to state, but anyone who thinks the second amendment is about hunting is an idiot.

    I’ve noticed quite a bit of projection within government. I strongly suspect that this is where we are getting all of these charges of right-wing racism. I’ve got several friends and family members who were strong Obama supporters during the campaign. They claimed it was about his policies, not his race, but few could explain what he actually stood for or what his record showed. When he was elected, all I heard was how great it was that we finally elected a black president. Nothing about what he stood for or how he would help the country.

    Now when people stand up to oppose the president, they are labeled as racist without regard for their views or motivations. I suspect that all along, these liberals saw nothing more than a black man running for president. They assume that since race is all they saw, that’s all the rest of us see, too.

  3. Jim,

    Removing their opponents ability to resist would go far toward moving their agenda forward.

    That is a very good point. It was required for all genocides…

  4. Two phrases that are central to the Leftist philosophy:
    “By any means necessary.”
    “The ends justify the means.”

    The ends the leftists have in mind are saintly (equality, adequte food and medical care for all, reduction of crime and peace abroad) so any ends they use to pursue them (disarmament, reeducation camps, confiscatory taxes, class warfare) are automatically justified. And if the legal, accepted methods fail to gain results… because the ends in mind are so important, ANY method is justified.

    After all, they’re doing good-right?

    You can also look at the Leftist doctrine (going back to the Thirties and earlier) of “No Enemies to the Left”. No matter how criminal or disgusting a Leftist is, other lefties will protect and cover for him. Al Sharpton, Hugo Chavez, Che Guevera… provably, there is no bottom to the dungheap. As a result, the entire enterprise becomes criminal and disgusting… personnel is policy, after all.

  5. Rule one of packing is that carrying a gun means you no longer can lose your temper. I know the gun in my pocket is always reminding me to watch what I say, who I say it to, and always de-escalate and walk away.

    There may be a corollary to Rule One: people who only mentally inhabit weapons-free and gun-free worlds may be less inclined to control their temper, because there is never any possibility of a violent response or escalation.

    I remember how much more polite the driving in Dallas became after concealed carry passed in the middle ’90’s. I noticed it, as did others. I remember being absolutely shocked when flying to another state (north of the Red River) without concealed carry to find how many times very angry people flipped me off just as I was driving out of the airport.

    And, this seems to be at the root of a lot of the anti-gun sentiment. Because temper is just assumed to be something that can not be controlled.

  6. Me, I just want to know where the scathing, out-for-blood condemnation of the enviroweenies is. I mean, when some nutjob whacko shoots up an abortion clinic, every single last pro-rights activist is held accountable, responsible, and to blame… If it is good for the goose…

  7. I am constantly amused (or is that annoyed?) by the Left’s insistence that man is good and that they are working to make him good and they will use force of arms and “re-education” to make it so.

    If he is already good, why must he be made so?

    AND who is to judge the correct degree of goodness when all men are flawed? Or even what consitutes “good”?

    So much simpler to agree with Madison:

    “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”
    – James Madison, Federalist #51.

    And with regard to an earlier comment – from John Adams:

    “It is weakness rather than wickedness which renders men unfit to be trusted with unlimited power.”
    – John Adams, 1788

Comments are closed.