Sunday, December 30, 2012

Unspoken in the Debate About Gun Controls

The President has promised to put his "full weight" to pass gun control legislation which proposals will likely include the usual suspects of an "assault weapons" ban, whatever that is, background checks, and assorted other restrictions.  The debate over guns will involve the left waiving the bloody shirt of the Newtown shootings while proposing legislation that will do little to prevent future occurrences.  I say that because, from what I can gather, the perpetrator had no criminal record, did not own the guns he used and of course violated a number of other "gun controls" including bringing a gun onto school property.  Beyond confiscation of all firearms, how will new laws prevent a similar attack?

Here is what the left will be thinking, but will not say openly; there is no legitimate reason to own guns.  Dana Sherne published an article on Policymic that almost says as much. They won't say so openly, because they know it evokes massive reaction that impedes their goal of banning firearms.  But they believe that only the government should have such weapons, make no mistake.  Why this is so has to do with the left's self identification with victimhood.  Gun owners tend not to be victims and in fact because gun owners are viewed as strong and competent, they are loathed on the left. 

But those on the right won't speak the full truth either.  There are a number of very impolitic reasons to own guns that don't get uttered publicly, only self defense and hunting are discussed.  However, I am considering buying guns for reasons of insurance.  First, there is the "zombie apocalypse" scenario; more accurately, the total break down of law and order, that is always possible due to some catastrophe.  Who doesn't believe that you will need a gun under those circumstances?  Nobody wants to say that guns are insurance, because it makes you sound like a crazy survivalist.  But insurance is about being prepared, and frankly guns need to be part of your thinking in case the world goes to hell.

The other aspect of insurance is even more unspeakable in polite company.  Ours is a government made of flawed human beings.  It is highly unlikely, but still possible, that it could deteriorate into a dictatorship.  Guns would be necessary to protect oneself from such a tyranny or to even actively fight back.  No one cares to utter these fears in open debate, but they are valid considerations.

So we will get some kind of ineffective legislation that slightly erodes our rights and sets dangerous precedents for further erosions, as the President refuses to let the crisis of the Newtown shootings go to waste.  But the measures will be ineffectual and in a few years we will have another mass killing at a school.  But that's what we expect when the President puts his "full weight" behind a bill.  Kind of like the affordable care act, we will get a contradictory and ultimately ineffective outcome that attacks our basic freedoms.

1 comment:

  1. There's still a dichotomy between what our dear leader says and what he does. He says he's going to put his full weight in the push, then he puts Biden in charge. Looks as if, once again, he'll let someone else take the lead. If something gets accomplished, he'll step forward for credit. If nothing happens, well, he did what he could.