Well, of course all my liberal Facebook friends are exercised over this weekend’s tragedy. One of them linked to Roger Ebert’s latest screed, the one that begins “I have never held a handgun in my life”, i.e., “I know fuck all about this.” And in reply I linked this. Now I really shouldn’t have; Tamara Keel is as much a full-bore, auto-fire, ballistic wookie-suited gun nut as you will find in the blogosphere, with an inimitable mastery of snark, and it just wasn’t sporting to do so. His reaction was interesting; he deleted the link, saying that he believed that the Second Amendment should be repealed and there would be no opinions to the contrary on his page. That was refreshingly honest, but it raises a question: since we’re agreed that this is the fundamental law of the land, will you agree to quit chipping away at an established individual right until such time as you have public opinion enough on your side to amend the Constitution? And, oh by the way, repeal the existing blatantly unconstitutional gun laws? I thought not. And here I was having such high hopes for a movement of Constitutionalist Leftists, who’d end the Drug War because nothing in the COTUS gives the Federal government the authority to wage it.
Then another idjit posted a quote from the professional provocateur Bill Maher: “It’s never the right time to talk gun control in America – we go right from “too soon” to “its forgotten”. If it’s never the right time to talk about it, Bill, why can’t you and the Brady Campaign and the rest of y’all just shut up about it? I can show you things that it’s “never the right time to talk about.” It’s never the right time to talk about reviving chattel slavery, even though there’s nothing necessarily racist about it: privatize general assistance by selling the recipients to the highest bidder. It’s never the right time to end abortion by raising the products of conception to market weight to sell for the table, as the great sage Jonathan Swift suggested. Why aren’t we having a national dialogue about these things? Because they’re legally and morally settled issues. Likewise, the right to armed self defense is a legally and morally settled issue, and when it gets implemented as legislation, it tends to get the implementers tossed on their ear. It’s an electoral loser. Every time we get a mass shooting and the Overton Window gets temporarily moved a silly millimeter to the left, America’s home invaders try to crawl through it, and get their heads blown off.
Now, I understand feelings. I think they’re a piss-poor guide to legislation, but I understand “Mommy, make it stop, please.” So let’s see if we can combine feelings and logic for my liberal friends. How many deaths and how much loss of liberty are you willing to countenance to pursue your goal of victim disarmament? Any serious attempt at taking people’s guns will result in a civil war. How many American police and military (and, doubtless, UN ‘security forces’) and collateral civilian casualties do you want to see? The last time was good for about 600,000, on a smaller population. I don’t think we’ll see proportionate casualties in a 4G war, but might well see many more through starvation and disease. Iraq insurgency civilian deaths are around 117K or so; would that be an acceptable number to rid America of guns?
But OK, let’s say you do it. How do you enforce it without an Orwellian surveillance state? We can’t even keep marijuana out of the country. What’s to keep the narcos from running Operation Fast and Furious in reverse and arming their clients on this side of the border? So we end up with the same pattern we’ve seen everywhere else this has been tried: bad guys have guns, good guys don’t, and violent crime goes through the roof. Will it be worth it all, for something that has never worked?
I invite my Constitutional Leftist friends to Occupy My Arsenal. You want to take my guns? Let’s have some grass-roots people power and do it on your own.