Tim Dunkin
February 21, 2013
Democrats want to turn more people into victims
By Tim Dunkin

A nation of victims – that's what the Democrat Party and the Left in general want for us to be. Unable to fend for ourselves, and unable to defend ourselves, they want for you, me, and everyone else to be dependent upon the state – controlled by them, of course – for everything. How else can you explain the frankly flabbergasting position being taken by Democrats in the Colorado state legislature this week concerning a bill about allowing concealed carry on college campuses in that state. In the course of debate on that bill, we have seen that many Democrats literally do prefer that Americans be forced to remain at a disadvantage versus those who would victimize them in horrific ways.

First, you had State Representative Joe Salazar (D-Thornton), who argued earlier this week that women who felt threatened by a potential rapist should not defend themselves with guns, but had other options like call boxes, safe zones, and whistles. After all, a woman might just pull that gun out, wave it around like Wild West Wendy, and shoot the wrong man, so Salazar seemed to intimate. It'd be so much safer to simply hide out in a parking lot's "anti-rape zone." Presumably these zones are as safe, effective, and deterrent as gun-free zones are at schools, the sanctity of which psychotic criminals never dare to violate.

Rare for a Democrat, Salazar actually apologized for his insensitive and stupid comment.

But it doesn't end there. In the same debate, State Senator Jesse Ulibarri (D-Adams County) suggested that women had better alternatives than guns for defending themselves from rapists, such as ballpoint pens. Seriously. A 5'3," 110 lb. woman, in his mind, is better off trying to stab her 6'3," 250 lb. assailant with a six inch pen in a close-contact melee than she is pulling out a .357 revolver and driving him off before he gets within 20 feet of her.

Most recently, State Representative Paul Rosenthal (D-Denver) observed that women would be much better off using the "buddy system" to prevent rapes than they would be using guns. Because again, women should have to endure the constant inconvenience of providing companionship to each other, using up hours of each others' time every day, rather than simply know how to use a gun and carry it on their person like a responsible adult.

In each of these cases, the common denominator is not just that these Democrats made incredibly stupid, insensitive, uncaring, and demeaning remarks about women and rape. It is also that each of these Democrats actively prefers – by trying to legislate away their ability to protect themselves – that women be forced to make themselves easier and more accessible potential victims of rape, one of the most horrifying crimes that a person can endure.

The obvious question is: Why are Democrats pro-rape?

I mean that as a serious question, by the way. More generally speaking, we must enquire as to why Democrats want people to be victims, unable to protect themselves, either from criminal predators, from criminal government, or even from the vicissitudes of life.

That's ultimately what every Democrat of other left-winger wants for you and me when they push for more gun control. One of the things that makes gun ownership so freedom friendly is that it is, in a very literal sense, the great equalizer. If the 5'3," 110 lb. woman mentioned above is carrying that .357 revolver in her purse, she is, in the sense of her ability to project force, every bit the equal of that 6'3," 250 lb. guy stalking her through the parking lot at night. Indeed, Democrats and other lefties, who usually make great show about their love of "democracy" and "equality," go strangely silent when it comes to the democratizing power of personal firearms. A gun is what makes that woman equal to any potential rapist. A gun is what makes the homeowner equal to the thugs trying to break into his home at night. A gun is what made the black man the equal of the Klan member. As State Senator Ulibarri – who is openly gay – ought to appreciate, a gun is what makes the gay guy walking home at night the equal to the truckload of rednecks with baseball bats out looking for trouble.

Yet, the Left never seems to make – or want to make, for that matter – this connection. Instead, they counsel reliance in the all-powerful call box. That's because the call box is a state-provided "solution" that doesn't involve the citizen purchasing a tool that might also make that citizen the equal of any armed government agent that might cross their path, either. The Democrats and the Left hate the idea most of all of citizens sharing the ability to project deadly force. The more honest ones will even admit that they think the government should have a monopoly on the use of force. Second amendment activists who argue that the right to keep and bear arms is, ultimately, about the right of the people to keep their own government in check, or even overthrow it if necessary, are absolutely right. That's why murderous dictators always – always – try to disarm their own people before sending them to the "re-education" camps. Ultimately, the Left wants to leave its options open for not only making you be a victim of other criminals, but also a victim of the leftists themselves.

But it's not just the issue of guns that shows the Left's abusive tendencies. In just about every area, the Left wants common citizens to be victims who are forced to rely on the government for help.

Take the economy, for instance. Democrats would rather that people continue to scrape by on welfare and unemployment than that they would get good paying jobs that would help them to operate apart from government assistance. That's why the Left actively tries to drive away manufacturing jobs on spurious environmental concerns. That's why the Left places an ever-increasing regulatory and taxation burden on businesses, making them less likely to expand their operations and hire new workers. In short, this is why Democrats and leftists do all of the seemingly stupid, economy-killing things that they do – it's not that they're unaware of the economic ramifications of their acts, but that they want these to harm the economy. The damage is a feature, not a bug. It's time for Americans to face the uncomfortable fact that the Democrats WANT you to be dependent on welfare, food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, disability, unemployment, and the rest of the apparatus. A person whose livelihood depends on these is a person who is locked into voting for Democrats – the Left guarantees itself an ever-enlarging voting bloc with every expanded program and every hit to the economy they can inflict. People with good jobs that pay well are people who don't need or want government "help." The Left hates that, and tries to do everything it can to remove from people the cushion of self-sufficiency from government "assistance."

Look at what government "assistance" does to those who go through terrible natural disasters. Even fifty years ago, when a hurricane or an earthquake hit an area, the people themselves pulled together as a community of individuals, helped themselves and each other out, and got their lives back onto an even keel within a relatively short amount of time. Contrast that with the response to Hurricane Sandy, in which FEMA was running short on bottled water, people were eating out of dumpsters, and folks in the area – who seemingly could conceive of no other solution to their problems than to rely on Daddy Obama to step in and solve them for them – were still sitting around in misery waiting for help a month after the hurricane was over.

This mentality of victimization even drives something as seemingly unrelated as energy policy. America is flush with energy. We have an abundance of coal, oil, natural gas, you name it. But yet, we can't get at a large share of it, because the government refuses to allow safe drilling off many of our coasts, refuses to open up government-locked lands for resource acquisition, refuses to approve new refineries, shuts down already operating oil fields, is actively persecuting the coal-powered electricity industry into oblivion, and is generally doing whatever it can to limit the use of fossil fuels in this nation. The excuse, as always, is "anthropogenic global warming," supposedly "settled science" against which there can be no argument (tell that to the majority of geoscientists, engineers, and meteorologists who do not believe in man-made global warming, according to a recent peer-reviewed journal article). The actual reason for stifling fossil fuel energy production and forcing the country to go down the rabbit trail of "green energy" (which Spain and Germany have both backed off from in recent months, by the way) is to make energy scarcer, and therefore more expensive. This, in turn, costs you and me more at the pump, at the thermostat, and at the retail counter, once again removing our ability to live a relatively inexpensive middle class lifestyle that doesn't require government intervention or subsidy. Remember – a broad-based middle class with access to a high standard of living is not in the Left's interests. This "bourgeoisie" class must be reduced to subsistence and dependency.

Dovetailing with all of this is the constant drumbeat from the government and their spear carriers in the media of new "crises" that absolutely, positively must be dealt with NOW before people have any time to think rationally about the supposed crises. Global warming started out as one of these. "Dangerous assault weapons" have been a recent bugaboo they've tried to use. But there's a new one each week that must have immediate government attention and intervention into our lives, until the point where we become inured to this "need" on our part to have Michelle Obama solve our childhood obesity problems or have the Democrats in Congress protect us from dangerous, power-absorbing conventional light bulbs. The "War on (Some) Drugs" has been a major result of this effort by the government to scare us into acquiescence to its power by inventing bugaboos. If we don't allow the police to confiscate property more or less at random, and to bust down doors at the wrong addresses in the dead of night, and to militarize like they're a branch of the standing army, then we're all going to turn into drug-addled potheads or something.

The examples that could be given are legion. Needless to say, the enemy of our government today is the self-sufficient individual and family who does not need government "help," and especially who actively refuses to accept that "help," no matter how forcefully it is proffered. Conservatives and liberty lovers want people to free themselves from government dependency, regaining their self-respect and self-government. We want people to take responsibility for themselves and to take back to themselves the adult responsibilities of looking after their own lives and those of their families. We neither want nor need the government to be our nanny, and Barack Obama is most certainly not our Daddy. The Democrats, on the other hand, have one driving motive – to increase the number of people unable to take care of themselves, and therefore who are at their mercy and in their hands. Democrats want victims because ultimately they are victimizers. Lovers of liberty want to turn victims into empowered individuals who can lead their own lives apart from someone else's whim.

That's the choice that every American faces. Will you be a victim or a victor in life?

© Tim Dunkin


The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)

Click to enlarge

Tim Dunkin

Tim Dunkin is a pharmaceutical chemist by day, and a freelance author by night, writing about a wide range of topics on religion and politics. He is the author of an online book about Islam entitled Ten Myths About Islam. He is a born-again Christian, and a member of a local, New Testament Baptist church in North Carolina. He can be contacted at patriot_tim@yahoo.com. All emails may be monitored by the NSA for quality assurance purposes.


Receive future articles by Tim Dunkin: Click here

Latest articles