|
It’s Time to Ban Guns. Yes, All of Them
[NewRepublic] Ban guns. All guns. Get rid of guns in homes, and on the streets, and, as much as possible, on police. Not just because of San Bernardino, or whichever mass shooting may pop up next, but also not not because of those.
I used to refer to my position on this issue as being in favor of gun control. Which is true, except that “gun control” at its most radical still tends to refer to bans on certain weapons and closing loopholes. The recent New York Times front-page editorial, as much as it infuriated some, was still too tentative. “Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership,” the paper argued, making the case for “reasonable regulation,” nothing more. Even the rare ban-guns arguments involve prefacing and hedging and disclaimers. “We shouldn’t ‘take them away’ from people who currently own them, necessarily,” writes Hollis Phelps in Salon. Oh, but we should. I say this not to win some sort of ideological purity contest, but because banning guns urgently needs to become a rhetorical and conceptual possibility. The national conversation needs to shift from one extreme—an acceptance, ranging from complacent to enthusiastic, of an individual right to own guns—to another, which requires people who are not politicians to speak their minds. And this will only happen if the Americans who are quietly convinced that guns are terrible speak out. All we have been hearing from the promoters of theft and murder have been "Americans" (even Canadians such as this individual) speaking out about the "evils" of gunz. Their wariness, as far as I can tell, comes from two issues: a readiness to accept the Second Amendment as a refutation, and a reluctance to impose “elite” culture on parts of the country where guns are popular. (There are other reasons as well, not least a fear of getting shot.) And there’s the extent to which it’s just so ingrained that banning guns is impossible, legislatively and pragmatically, which dramatically weakens the anti-gun position. Your prize example, Australia was a massive failure in confiscation, and spoke more to English speaking people's unwillingness to part with the one means of protection available to the average individual, than to any leftist dream of placing fellow citizens and political opponents in mortal danger from the security apparatus of the state because of gun ownership. The first issue shouldn’t be so complicated. It doesn’t take specialized expertise in constitutional law to understand that current U.S. gun law gets its parameters from Supreme Court interpretations of the Second Amendment. But it’s right there in the First Amendment that we don’t have to simply nod along with what follows. That the Second Amendment has been liberally interpreted doesn’t prevent any of us from saying it’s been misinterpreted, or that it should be repealed. Dunno which cave you have been living in, but in several states the 2nd Amendment has been effectively gutted by local laws, all with the approval of a wrong headed Supreme Court. But the 2nd Amendment can't be repealed. It can only be amended by the several states, not by legislative fiat from which most guns law originated. When you find yourself assuming that everyone who has a more nuanced (or just pro-gun) argument is simply better read on the topic, remember that opponents of abortion aren’t wondering whether they should have a more nuanced view of abortion because of Roe v. Wade. They’re not keeping their opinions to themselves until they’ve got a term paper’s worth of material proving that they’ve studied the relevant case law. You should pause to show your readers that icky abortion amendment in the Constitution. And as we all know living and dying by courts and the majestic and ongoing misinterpreation of the Constitution's plain language is a bad way for a civil society to conduct itself. This nation is supposed to be free with as few rules and regulations over individual lives as possible, but instead we have robed and elected Mandarins whose only role is to pander to whatever initiative the left can conceive, all the while ignoring basic civil liberties. Then there is the privilege argument. If you grew up somewhere in America where gun culture wasn’t a thing (as is my situation; I’m an American living in Canada), or even just in a family that would have never considered gun ownership, you’ll probably be accused of looking down your nose at gun culture. As if gun ownership were simply a cultural tradition to be respected, and not, you know, about owning guns. Guns… I mean, must it really be spelled out what’s different? It’s absurd to reduce an anti-gun position to a snooty aesthetic preference. Whut? There’s also a more progressive version of this argument, and a more contrarian one, which involves suggesting that an anti-gun position is racist, because crackdowns on guns are criminal-justice interventions. Progressives who might have been able to brush off accusations of anti-rural-white classism may have a tougher time confronting arguments about the disparate impact gun control policies can have on marginalized communities. Yeah, right: gun owners can be easily convinced to give up their weapons by your using Marxist terms and concepts. Sweetie, you need to get out more. You hate your political opponents enough to set the raw power of the state against them all because they own firearms, at least learn about them before you do that. These, however, are criticisms of certain tentative, insufficient gun control measures—the ones that would leave small-town white families with legally-acquired guns well enough alone, allowing them to shoot themselves or one another and to let their guns enter the general population. If you'll look, which you obviously didn't, the great bulk of criminal gun violence is committed not by "white gun owning families" but by those of other races. Most including nonwhites own guns for protection because the state doesn't protect anyone but itself, and often creates conditions in which violent crimes with guns flourish. Ban Guns, meanwhile, is not discriminatory in this way. It’s not about dividing society into “good” and “bad” gun owners. It’s about placing gun ownership itself in the “bad” category. It’s worth adding that the anti-gun position is ultimately about police not carrying guns, either. That could never happen, right? Well, certainly not if we keep on insisting on its impossibility. IOW: It's about the advocacy of setting the raw power of the government against individuals, your political opponents because they own guns. And all the while expecting no backlash against those who would carry out the dictates of government officials, the officials themselves and those who moved gun confiscation to policy, and the inevitable violence that will accompany it. Ask yourself this: Is the pro-gun side concerned with how it comes across? More to the point: Does the fact that someone opposes gun control demonstrate that they’re culturally sensitive to the concerns of small-town whites, as well as deeply committed to fighting police brutality against blacks nationwide? I’m going to go with no and no on these. (The NRA exists!) Gotta get a dig in at the nation's oldest civil rights group, Sweetie? On the pro-gun-control side of things, there’s far too much timidity. What’s needed to stop all gun violence is a vocal ban guns contingent. Getting bogged down in discussions of what’s feasible is keeps what needs to happen—no more guns—from entering the realm of possibility. Public opinion needs to shift. The no-guns stance needs to be an identifiable place on the spectrum, embraced unapologetically, if it’s to be reckoned with. You go right ahead with all your polls and votes, but be mindful of one concept: I get a veto, and my vote, if any of this is implemented will come from the rooftops. At 2,810 feet per second. Posted by: badanov 2015-12-11 |
|
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=438179 |