Tuesday, January 22, 2013


"We have four boxes used to guarantee our liberty: The soap box, the
ballot box, the jury box and the cartridge box."
  Ambrose Bierce (1887)

Once again, pro-Constitution pundits are pointing out that the gun control rhetoric is incoherent. With the same commendable reasoning as before (e.g. this from John Lott) they illuminate the logical inconsistency, lack of evidence and appeals to fear that the anti-Constitution crowd presents to justify gelding the Second Amendment. They're perfectly right and, sadly, perfectly irrelevant to this fight. Let me reiterate: logic, evidence, moral standards and the like matter in the governance of our own behavior. They matter in determining whether and how to respond to threats, whether and how to shoot at a quarry in forest or field, whether and how to practice, to safeguard our weapons, and so forth. Being factually correct, being logical, being moral will not help us win. Please note that I'm not recommending we be illogical, factually incorrect, or immoral. Those are the province of our enemies, the anti-Constitutional "Progressives."

Let's be brutally frank: Gun control is a civil rights issue. If Heller was the Second Amendment counterpart to the Brown vs Board of Education decision's Fourteenth Amendment victory, Obama's gun control proposals (like those hurriedly passed by New York) are the equivalent of Jim Crow. Andrew Cuomo might as well be the reincarnation of George Wallace, and anti-Constitution cabals like the Brady Campaign the new White Citizen's Councils.

How can I say that? Easy. First of all, gun control has always been about political power. The Sullivan Law in New York was about maintaining Tammany Hall's position atop a corrupt heap, and keeping the immigrants unarmed. Britain's 1920 gun restrictions were motivated by a fear of the "working classes." For the same reason, fear of revolt, they also disarmed the people of India.  After Reconstruction gun control was imposed to keep the newly free black population from resisting the Klan and other white supremacists. In 1930's Germany, Jews were disarmed. 

That can't apply here, say the Progressives. We have a wonderful racially harmonious society. Who would be the target? I would note cynically that Obama himself identified his enemies, those backwards rednecks bitterly clinging to their guns and religion. That his proposals would also disarm black people, women, Asians, Latinos, Jews and others who might need to protect themselves matters not at all to him and his co-ideologues. To Obama and his Progressives, as to all collectivists, only the herd matters. Individual losses are acceptable if it means the herd is better controlled. By them.

Progressives will deny this victimization, of course. Consider Jay Bookman, pet liberal of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, who wrote in Sunday's issue that "Guns Don't Guarantee Liberty." Of course they don't. Nothing does. Life doesn't come with guarantees. What guns do is make it easier to resist tyranny, either of the state or of criminal gangs. Bookman might read Max Boot's Invisible Armies, about insurgencies and guerilla warfare throughout history. He might also read about Jewish resistance to the Nazis, some of which involved shooting them. He could start here. He won't, though.

Surely one can't accuse Progressives of bigotry? They love diversity, welcoming all to their rainbow-illuminated Candyland. Don't they? Read Richard Parncutt, who wants to kill "global warming deniers." Oh, and the Pope. Read some Progressives who want to kill NRA members here, here, and here. There are more but you can use Google as well as I can.
Then there's the Occupy Wall Street crowd, who want to purge the US of "Zionist Bankers."

Is there any doubt that Progressives would love to disarm, to segregate, to disadvantage anyone who disagrees with them? To treat us as Stalin did the Kulaks? As the Chinese did the Tiananmen Square protestors or as they currently treat dissident Tibetans

If you're not a black person, imagine this: How would black people respond to new Jim Crow laws? How would they respond to "common sense" racial restrictions? If you are black, you don't have to imagine. Now, all of you, because you're all in this together: 
Govern your behavior accordingly.

No comments:

Post a Comment

I welcome your comments.