| Submit your comments on this article | |
| -Short Attention Span Theater- | |
| It’s Time to Ban Guns. Yes, All of Them | |
| 2015-12-11 | |
[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 |
| #20 Only land owners should have guns. |
| Posted by: jvalentour 2015-12-11 20:02 |
| #19 Murder is against the law but somehow it still happens. No guns and we will see more stabbings, more people run over, blunt force trauma, poisonings, and the bill ayers favorite -- bombings....... Some folks have no respect for other people and some have no respect for the constitution and the author of this article has respect for neither. |
| Posted by: Airandee 2015-12-11 19:40 |
| #18 anon, I would bet you don't have the gang problem we do here. Most gunshot victims are gang related. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2015-12-11 18:26 |
| #17 having said that, gun control actually does work well in Australia. per capita we have a lot less random shootings than the US this is because there are not many guns around, so people who are on drugs, or have a mental illness do not have the opportunity to pick one up and start shooting at random we also do not get accidental shootings where children find them in their parents houses and think they are a toy. So most australians are very happy there are gun control laws. The only people here that campaign for less gun control are hobby shooters and farmers - but farmers who need them have a license and have them |
| Posted by: anon1 2015-12-11 17:41 |
| #16 gun control should never have been linked to San Bernadino as an issue San Bernadino was an Islamist fascist terror attack. They had a pipe bomb factory in their garage. They would simply use bombs instead of guns if guns were banned. This was a cynical attempt by the political lying class who want to separate the concept of Islam from terrorism even though it is the motivating factor It is dishonest in the extreme if they really are campaigning on gun control then they hurt their own cause by cynically using as a poster child an issue that should not even have been linked. It is like using the dead toddler on a beach in Turkey as propaganda to say Europe should open its borders. Why has it got anything to do with Europe? |
| Posted by: anon1 2015-12-11 17:38 |
| #15 In the next world, you are on your own. /channeling Firesign Theatre |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2015-12-11 17:29 |
| #14 If she wants to be a slave, I own and shoot guns, I'm also handicapped, be mine, I promise no whippings, only that you be my willing man Friday for the rest of my life.(Her"s Too) In return I'll protect you. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2015-12-11 14:36 |
| #13 Freudian typo |
| Posted by: Frank G 2015-12-11 14:31 |
| #12 When seconds cunt, the Police are only minutes away. Ah |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2015-12-11 14:29 |
| #11 Twit, she advocates slavery, I wish she'd get mugged THEN she'd remember that "When seconds cunt, the Police are only minutes away. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2015-12-11 14:27 |
| #10 Only the fact that they are 100% certain we are harmless Especially if you're living in a cellar in Toronto. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2015-12-11 13:56 |
| #9 Frank - did you man a big cellar? |
| Posted by: Bobby 2015-12-11 13:54 |
| #8 Phoebe Maltz Bovy is a writer living in Toronto. She is writing a book with St. Martin’s Press about the idea of privilege (2017). bet that will be a big seller |
| Posted by: Frank G 2015-12-11 12:52 |
| #7 If people like this really were afraid of people with guns, they wouldn't dare say such things. Only the fact that they are 100% certain we are harmless allows them to utter such nastiness. |
| Posted by: Iblis 2015-12-11 12:01 |
| #6 Seems to me you have two kinds of Gun Grabbing liberals. (1) The kind like this yahoo that live in a utopian world and really want the guns grabbed (2) Opportunists who tell the first group what they want to hear in order to get keep their votes from straying farther left, they will occasionally pass some marginal law about fantasy guns to look like they are doing something but know that taking guns away is impossible without a civil war. They also don't particularly like the debate because it drives up Republican attendance at elections and could easily cost them battleground states. (1) Is not smart enough to realize they are being played. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2015-12-11 10:39 |
| #5 The liberals would not like the Mad Max scenario that would ensue if all guns were banned. These people are naive, unhinged and dangerous to say the least. Criminals and jihadists would still have guns, axes, knives, etc. As is said the only thing that stops a bad man or woman with a gun is a good man or woman with a gun. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2015-12-11 10:18 |
| #4 Why do I get the feeling that she has full respect for Islam - especially the radical ones. Oh and supports Abortion as well. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2015-12-11 08:32 |
| #3 We're going to have a real civil war, maybe later than sooner, but it certainly has reached a place were it inevitable. "Stand your ground; don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here." The Left in their fantasy world believes the Army will duly carry out their orders to grab the guns ignoring they aren't the ones in the ranks and never have been. It'll break the Army just as it did in 1861. Then again, they have no history to learn from. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2015-12-11 08:07 |
| #2 See "An Open Rant Aimed at Those Who Would Repeal the Second Amendment." |
| Posted by: Elmerert Hupens2660 2015-12-11 02:03 |
| #1 She's advocating the moral equivalent to slavery. I refuse to be a slave to her or to any government or person. An armed human is a free human. |
| Posted by: Silentbrick 2015-12-11 00:45 |