Jefferson Descendant Disavows More than Ancestor’s Memory

Anyone who would tear down this would tear down all of Jefferson’s work. iStock-1147154919
Anyone who would tear down this would tear down all of Jefferson’s work. iStock-1147154919

U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “I’m a direct descendant of Thomas Jefferson,” Salon columnist and novelist Lucian K. Truscott IV wrote in a Monday opinion piece for The New York Times. “Take down his memorial.”

The reason, of course, is because Jefferson owned slaves. It’s another springboarding from the agitprop of the “1619 Project” and the deliberate stirring up of racial divisions for political purposes by “the newsraper of record.”

How “woke” of Truscott. But slavery is not the only thing about the Founders he objects to. He’s also an unabashed “progressive,” meaning he stands as much against the tremendous advances in freedom his ancestor accomplished in life as he does against his failings.

Nowhere is that more apparent than in how Truscott disparages the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

“How about you join the Army if you want to shoot guns?” Truscott asks in a 2018 Salon hit piece on the right to keep and bear arms that packs in all the clichés. You don’t need an M-16 to hunt! You don’t need 30 rounds! You don’t need silhouette targets! Such guns were designed for war!

Not quite but no kidding – seems someone once mentioned a “tree of liberty” that anticipated exactly that. The Second Amendment isn’t about duck hunting and a Bill of Needs is straight out of Marx.

The militia, at the time the Second Amendment was ratified, kept the same types of weapons at home as they were likely to encounter when called forth – otherwise, they would be marching off to their slaughter. That’s hardly an outcome that would be “necessary to the security of a free State.”

As for Truscott’s Army suggestion, that’s reminiscent of nothing so much as a “join the SS or SA” quote widely attributed (but not documented that I can find) to Reichsführer of the Schutzstaffel, Heinrich Himmler. Here’s one I can document (thanks to the Internet Archive) from Truscott’s ideological soul sister, “Long Island Lolita” Amy Fisher:

“Assault weapons were designed for military use. If a law-abiding citizen has such a yearning to possess one of these weapons, then let that person join the Marines.”

At least in his case, Truscott claims “I grew up in an Army family, and … I never saw a goddamned human silhouette target until I was on a United States Army firing range with an Army-issue M-16 in my hands.” His Salon bio further reveals he is “a graduate of West Point.” Neither qualification claim brings up an earlier admission that he  “got a general discharge under other than honorable conditions, generally known as a ‘bad discharge’” (not quite enough to “legally disqualify” him for gun ownership, but enough to get a foreigner “denaturalized”).

“Youuuuu might be a gun nut if . . .” Truscott began another Salon hit piece on guns (that’s all they ever have). In this one, he goes heavy on Alinsky Rule 5 ridicule to make fun of concerns that anyone wants to take away guns (of course they do). He falsely claims NRA is having hysterics over “bump stocks” (they actually gave a green light to treat them like machineguns), that introducing car comparisons is a “straw man” argument (he should tell that to his hosts at The New York Times), and that correcting the politically-motivated conflation of machineguns with semiautos is “military-macho-gun-speak.”

Anyone getting the feeling that “other than honorable” might be a way of life with this ankle-biter of a descendant?

Absolutely there can be no excuse for the sin of slavery, and noting that it has been practiced by cultures throughout human history, that whites have also been enslaved, and that it’s still being practiced today does not mitigate that.

It’s true that Thomas Jefferson and some of the other Founding Fathers, including George Washington, failed in extending the benefits of Liberty to all – that cannot and should not be denied. That does not mean the entire system and framework of government they devised, from the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are invalidated. That’s what those tearing down monuments, the totalitarian-minded purveyors of universal slavery, are really trying to destroy.

The criminal defense blog, Simple Justice, has an interesting post up, analyzing a challenge to all the “woker than thou” white SJWs.  Simply put, it makes a credible case that most would have gone along with the prevailing values of the times. It is the rare person who is willing to stand up against the majority and take positions on individual rights that have been condemned and demonized by the establishment, resulting in ridicule, name-calling, silencing, ostracizing, denial of economic opportunities…

Think of who that really applies to. Chance are they won’t be writing for The New York Times or Salon.

Yes, the giants of our past had flaws. “He that is without sin among you…” and all that.

Who will end up making the greater ultimate contribution to Liberty? The Founding Fathers or ideological dwarfs demolishing the legacy bequeathed to them in the shallow quest to gain approval from their similarly stunted peers?


About David Codrea:David Codrea

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

Choose your Reaction!