Source: Elliot Bougis
“If it’s not one thing it’s another.”
That was something I heard my dad say a hundred times if I heard it a single time.
If it’s not the weather, it’s the car.
If it’s not your kids’ grades, it’s their health.
If it’s not a new change at work, it’s a new problem at home.
And round and round it goes.
Part of growing up, of course, is learning to “dance” with the rabbit punches like these that life throws you. Being an adult–to say nothing of being a successful adult!–means keeping your “head on a swivel,” as they say in the military.
We teach kids to look both ways before they cross the street. But when you become an adult, you need to look left, right, up, down, and basically all around–situational awareness, in other words. And even when we’re not literally crossing the road, but are entering a new job, relationship, financial arrangement, country, or whatever, we still need to have our head on a swivel, be aware that we’re not always aware.
Likewise, we teach kids not to talk to strangers,but as adults we also need to learn how to talk to strangers and how to talk friends. We have to learn how and when to say what (or what not) to whom. As a victim of fraud, I have learned the hard way that sometimes the friendliest voice can be masking the darkest intentions.
This is true in familiar surroundings, too. In fact, if you look at the murder, accident, and violence statistics, most assaults and accidents happen to people in places and around people they know. When you get too familiar with your surroundings, or with people around you, your head slows down on the swivel, you start glancing in only one or two directions when crossing one of life’s streets, and that’s when you step on the proverbial landmine (or at least, banana peel).
The point of this friendly reminder is that, as conservative adults, we need to keep our heads on a swivel as liberals regroup under President Trump.
If it’s not one thing, it’s another.
If it’s not one liberal tactic, it’s another.
As a recent Tribunist article puts it:
Second Amendment advocates had much to celebrate after this year’s election. The Republican landslide is a virtual guarantee of vast improvements in gun rights. Constitutional carry is high on the list of reform, and others are pushing hard for a repeal of the National Firearms Act.
Sounds rosy, right? Sounds like we’re about to cross the street into a new, gun-friendly future. We can relax a bit; after all, having our heads on a swivel the past eight years has been exhusting–we desrve a little rest.
Not so fast, kiddies.
Even as the future looks bright, “California is about to enact major new restrictions that strip away gun rights.”
As the Tribunist writer explains,
This latest push centers around an already controversial magazine ban. In six months, there may be no ‘high capacity’ mags in California (except, of course, for those owned by criminals, police, and those in the military). … Gun control proponents look at a 30-round magazine … as “high-capacity” or “large capacity.” California has led the way in this charge to limit the availability of 30-round magazines, and set the number of rounds a magazine can hold at a much lower point.
Specifically, on December 15–when most conservatives had their head swiveled onto the rise of Donald Trump and the flood of salty liberal tears trying to wash it away–California announced a new “emergency” ban on what they call “large capacity” magazines.
Under the new law, gun owners have six months to dispose of or permanently alter their large-capacity magazines.
The options are pretty standard:
(1) remove the large-capacity magazine from the state;
(2) sell the large-capacity magazine to a licensed firearms dealer;
(3) destroy the large-capacity magazine; or
(4) surrender the large-capacity magazine to a law enforcement agency for destruction.
But in a word, they all say the same thing: “Surrender.”
Surrender your arms.
And by surrendering your arms, surrender your Second Amendment rights.
Think about it: by banning so-called “high capacity” magazines, this law is literally trying to lower the capacity of guns as self-defense items. The law, in other words, is literally trying to reduce the capacity–i.e., the ability–of gun owners to defend themselves.
And, of course, once this law passes, and the people get used to it, and the number of anti-gun citizens keeps growing, the next time around a law will be introduced that re-defines “high capacity” magazines down to 25 rounds… 20 rounds… 10 rounds… until eventually there is “0 capacity” for self defense.
Critics of this new law have pointed out the common problem with liberal anti-gun measures: the only people who will pay attention to this law are the law abiding citizens of California! For every law-abiding gun owner who surrenders his Constitutional right to self-defense, there is one scofflaw with a gun to violate the unarmed. As always, those who break laws will continue to ignore this law, which is why “well meaning” liberal laws are actually a punishment for the law-abiding and a shelter for the lawless.
If it’s not one thing, it’s another.
If it’s not California thumbing its nose at President Trump by defending all its sanctuary cities, it’s California trying to remove Americans’ right to defend themselves from whoever gets to enjoy sanctuary in those “gun-free” cities.