Most people own guns because they're afraid. Before you jump, hear me out.

If you have a weapon for "defense," you are afraid of an offense. Self-defense is the fear of an offense against oneself. Whether the fear is burglary, robbery, rape, assault, or murder, the gun defends. If one did not fear these offenses, one would not need to defend against them. The idea that one can struggle against offense without a gun is moot. Since guns exist, there is no reason to struggle against offense without one.

Self-defense can also be against widespread oppression and persecution. Every human being ought to fear groupthink. As an individual, I ought to fear slavish adoption of or to behavioral standards. For example, the idea that "community benefit" outweighs my own desires. I ought to fear the taking of my private property for the common good. I ought to fear communism. For another example, I ought to fear being singled out for being different. I ought to fear an angry crowd gathering at my doorstep. I ought to fear persecution for who I am. Finally, I ought to fear tyranny. I ought to fear the historical evidence against a powerful central government. I ought to fear the police state. I ought to fear fascism.

The gun is the greatest equalizer against all these fears.

True, the gun is also, in the wrong hands, a creator of megalomania. Psychotics bent upon their own destruction sometimes use the gun for mass murder. Desperate criminals use the gun to relieve their poverty by stealing private property. Organized criminals (mafia, cartel, or gang) use the gun to force their ways. Tyrants use the gun to force other humans to submit to their will. None of this is reasonable by any means. However, the solution is not to ban the gun. The solution is to equalize against the gun with the gun. A bad guy with a gun is either stopped or slowed by a good guy with a gun. Thugs are conquered when a citizenry is armed and active. When an individual is well-armed, enslavement becomes much harder. When an entire community is well-armed, enslavement is almost impossible.

Michael Moore says that Caucasian (white) ownership of guns indicates racism. Michael Moore has a bodyguard. Michael Moore owns a gun. Michael Moore is afraid. He proves the case that we own guns because we are afraid. His own astonishment at owning a gun possibly causes him to call himself racist. However, rather than bash him, I applaud him. For I would rather that Moore exercise his constitutional right and be a hypocrite. I do not wish to see any person voluntarily disarm themselves in order to make a point. On the other hand, Michael Moore is a menace to society because he is a fascist. Moore would use his gun to force the rest of us to submit to his type of enslavement. What can you say about a man who mourns Hugo Chavez? Or who really admires Karl Marx?

But Michael Moore is small pumpkins. Let's talk about what's really frightening. Let's talk about why we really need guns. First, the unending threat of Islamic sharia, "submit or die." Second, the continuing rise of the American police state, "submit or be whisked away." TSA: "Sir, we're going to have to detain you for 25 hours." Have we forgotten about certain provisions of the NDAA? Third, gangs are expanding. The truth is, our permissive society is creating monsters. Fourth, the Mexican cartels are out of control and spilling into Texas. The Rio Grande border has become one of the most dangerous places in America. These and other very real threats cause fear and panic. These things will not disappear by wishing them away. These things will not cease to exist by ignoring them. These things will need to be addressed and remedied. Meantime, the best method to turn back the threat is with the great equalizer. The best method to curtail fear is to own a firearm.

This brings me to the real reason why guns frighten liberals. The sight of a gun reminds them that the world is not the utopia for which they pine. The sight of a gun is a slap in the face. A gun reminds that the world is ugly, violent, harsh, oppressive, hostile, and tyrannical. Liberals cannot tolerate this reality. They see only the light at the end of the tunnel, their new age of enlightenment. They believe that if only people would think like they do, the world would change. Well, duh!

But because it takes a world mindset change to achieve utopia, liberals become fascists. They force their ideas down people's gullets, and ridicule those who oppose. They must take control of the mechanics of government to effect these changes. They must seize the means of protection against these changes. They must, above all things, seize guns.

Meanwhile, the bullies, criminals, psychos, and tyrants of this world smile on. While the liberal is busy snatching at legal gun ownership, the maniacs lick their lips. They salivate in anticipation of disarmament. They can't wait to pounce for profit, power, lust, even genocide. For this reason, the liberal is the greatest threat to life and liberty.

The liberal permits the Islamic radical to "free speech" while beating down opposition. The liberal permits communists to "free assembly" while tearing apart the Tea Party. The liberal permits atheists to mock peaceful religion. The liberal permits unreasonable search and seizure in the name of "security." The liberal worries about the poor criminal, and protects him by grabbing guns.

Why is the liberal so? What causes the liberal to feel so superior, to act so elite?

First, there is a deep mistrust, even hatred, for Christianity. The history of bloody Christianity is trotted out time and again as a bludgeon. Witch trials, Inquisition, Crusades, internecine war, Papal States, anti-Semitism. These are hefty tools in the liberal arsenal (note irony). Yet, is the history of Islam less violent? Sharia, master racism, world domination by caliphate, terrorism, abuse of women. What causes the liberal to for one moment defend Islam? Is the legacy of communism kind and peaceful? Marx established the precepts of no private property, no right to family, and no religion. Marxism is a violent theft of persons and things for use by a collective entity. Overthrow, execution, starvation, gulags, militarism, not to mention terrible economics. What is the appeal of communism either in theory or practice? Why should liberals for one moment approach communist thought?

In both cases, pro-Islam and pro-communism, there is a deep aversion to capitalism. The acquisition of wealth by white people, and the protection thereof, is the liberal thorn. Therefore, to the so-called soft-hearted liberal, Muslims are targets of white Christians. Muslims are treated to a fleecy comforter, while jihad is virtually dismissed. Communists are also treated as victims, and liberals run to their rescue. Meanwhile, the misery of communism is explained away as "not real communism."

Liberals are the perfect weapon by which monsters take over society. In the name of compassion, the liberal tolerates the seething hatred of "the oppressed." They act as if playing nice with those who harbor hatred will cause spiritual conversion. But the liberal is playing with fire. For tolerance of hatred causes it to manifest, not to be erased.

Second, there is the age-old and satanic hatred of the Jews. Here, the liberal merely joins the enemies of mankind in every form. Nazis, Muslim terrorists, Stalinists, the KKK, medieval Christianity. These are the Jew-haters. At various times, they have blamed the Jews for everything. Poor economy? It's the Jewish bankers. Missing babies? It's the Jewish Passover. Rotting culture? It's the Jewish entertainment industry. And what has the pogrom against Jews accomplished? The establishment of tyrannical states in Europe and Asia.

Why then does the liberal join in the persecution of this minority people? Because the liberal believes that the Jews are an aggressor people. But if liberalism believes this, why are many Jews liberals? Because, unbelievably, they blame themselves for world affairs. Though it hurts their own people, even themselves, they join in Jewish persecution. How do I know this? I was once a Jewish liberal.

Now, I am a Jewish ultra-conservative. Consider me to be like Barry Goldwater. Consider me to be the Jewish Joe McCarthy. I despise liberalism and communism, but I love my people. And because I love my people, I am an evangelist for conservatism. For conservatism is the defender of capitalism. Why is that important? Because it is Karl Marx who said that capitalism is the same as Judaism. And if so, I am a defender of both. But if not, I am a defender of my people against the hatred it implies. Because Marx and most communists believe Judaism is the founder of all the world's ills. Why then did Hitler, the so-called anti-communist, also hate Judaism and the Jews? For the same reason!

Marxism is a master racism based on "superior" ideology, i.e., blaming capitalism. Nazism is a master racism based on "superior" genetics, i.e., blaming primarily the Jews. They share the same root, hatred of the Jews, though they claim to be mortally opposed. Islam precedes both, with a similar perspective. Islam is a master racism based on "superior" theology, i.e., blaming Jews and Christians.

Why hate the Jews at all? There are six known reasons. The solution for my people has been to assimilate, that is, to blend in and to be left alone. One can readily see that assimilation has for a long time been a Jewish goal. The liberal is the perfect example of this assimilation gone wrong. For instead of being proud, they fear their own Judaism. But they cannot become Muslim or Nazis. These they consider "right-wing" enemies. Thus, fearing the "right-wing" (as they see it), my people lean left, sometimes far left.

Do you understand? My people, the Jews, are afraid that their persecution and genocide is coming… again. And they somehow believe that turning left is the path to survival. Somehow they have been led to believe that conservatism is their enemy. Somehow they have been led to believe that guns are their enemy.

Our motto is "Never again!" One would think that most Jews would therefore decide to be heavily-armed. Israel is a good example of the heavily-armed Jew. And see now how the world views the heavily-armed Jew. For though Israel defends itself, the UN, the Arabs, and the communists attack Israel. The state of Israel, they say, is misappropriated and illegitimate. They say Israel has no right to exist because the land belongs to someone else. You can already guess what I think.

The idea of Jews with guns also brings up the issue of the Holocaust. Would the Holocaust have been possible if Jews were armed? Regardless of your reply, the connection I'm drawing is to the present day. Will a military coup of the United States be possible if the citizenry are armed? The answer is, very unlikely. Drones or no drones, the military is outgunned and outmanned.

Some have questioned whether the Second Amendment permits such resistance. The permission to defend against a military coup is NOT in the Second Amendment. It is in the Third Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment. The Second Amendment merely states a fact, the natural right to be armed.

Why do I speak with such "paranoia"? Guess.

The Jew, among all people, ought to be the greatest defender of gun ownership. That is why you will not find a more staunch advocate and ally than me. Guns, to me, are only a reminder of fear, and the need to defend against evil. I believe in the right of every citizen, the well-regulated militia, to own a firearm. I believe "well-regulated" means the imposition of proper discipline and training.

Now, I want to warn you against agreeing to any concessions. I oppose "grandfathering" because that is a communist trick. Grandfathering relieves your natural right in exchange for a government grant. I oppose "waivers" or "exemptions" for military or police. If we accept this notion, it means military and police are of some different citizenry. It means they are of elite rather than of the people. I oppose the "universal background check" because it reminds me of the Jewish badge. For the same reason, I oppose the "mental health check" before buying guns or ammo.

In general, I oppose the Obama administration because I believe they are communist. Therefore, whatever they say, no matter how pious, is a Marxist dialectic. That is, an argument meant to bring about an inevitable historical conclusion. In the matter of guns, the dialectic is that gun ownership holds back the proletariat.

We live in a world of great threats. Individualism is under attack from all fronts. Freedom of religion is under attack by Islam, atheism, and courts. Freedom of speech is under attack as hate crime, racism, and conspiracy theory. Freedom to prosper is under attack from communism, criminals, and government. All we have is our freedom to defend ourselves. That now is coming under attack. It is no wonder we are afraid. It is no wonder we are stockpiling guns.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.