Thu, 19 Apr 2007 18:59:01
On gun control and consistency of thought
Often we paint the world in black and white. In America, we’ve decided lately that we prefer red and blue. Some things are automatically “blue” issues. Some things are painted blue when really they’re purple; both “sides” actually have the same goal, such as more freedom for all Americans.
Gun control is very much a blue issue. Oh you’ll find some red-staters that will allow for some degree or another of gun control; George Bush comes to mind. No one would ever accuse him of being blue, and yet he’s always been unhappy about the “assault” weapons ban going the way of the dodo, regardless of how useless the law was in the first place. Generally speaking, you’ll see that the vast majority of gun control advocates, especially those who believe that the Second Amendment is a collective right - are Democrats (or further to the left, even).
Who leads the charge in this country today when it comes to U.S. Citizens being, say, wiretapped without due process? Who leads the charge against the USA PATRIOT Act? Who calls the current administration everything from heavy-handed to totalitarian to Hitler?
Is it Republicans? Not many, except for a few self-appointed “true” conservatives acting as our collective conscious (even if no one asked them to do so). The people who yell the loudest about a “fascist” government are also yelling the loudest for the government to crush our Second Amendment rights, and with rare exception, they are blue.
I pose this question not to the reasonable “blues” who might read this - I think you and I already agree that another law won’t mean anything to a criminal or a nutcase bent on death and destruction - instead I pose it to anyone who favors a collectivist interpretation of the Second Amendment, and those who want guns banned; If you feel that the government should not be allowed to suspend or trample on your rights as a citizen in the name of maybe, hopefully, if we’re all lucky, catching a terrorist. then what are you doing supporting gun control? Gun control is allowing the government to trample on and potentially suspend your Second Amendment rights in the hopes that maybe, if we’re really lucky, we might be able to catch a criminal or two before they use a gun.
Gun control and many of the powers created or taken by the current President have much in common. They punish the innocent. They assume guilt without due process. They oppress the people. They violate rights. Criminals and terrorists will always find a way around all of it.
Consistency of thought comes into play here. If you are in favor of one, it’s logical that you would favor the other. If you despise one of these things, gun control or Bush’s abuses of the Constitution, it would be a contradiction in logic to support the other. Put simply, if you can’t stand Bush’s abuses of liberty, then you should stand shoulder-to-shoulder with your gun-owning brothers and sisters and defend the ideal of liberty for all. I put it to you that defending the nation against encroachment on liberty is a purple issue (for lack of a better way to phrase it). It doesn’t matter if that encroachment is warrantless wiretapping, a war on drugs or gun control. We should all be working together to prevent (or overturn) them all. Red and blue, side-by-side, reminding the government that they work for us, not the other way around.
In summation, I would dig out an old chestnut that I think applies here. In 1759, a book was published called “An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania.” Benjamin Franklin published it but he claimed later that he did not write it. It was also used in 1755 in a letter to the governor of Pennsylvania. The point is, no one really knows who first uttered the following motto; but the words ring as true today as they did in Colonial America:
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Posted by JimK at 06:59 PM on April 19, 2007
Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email to a friend |
Categories: News, Politics, Guns - 2nd Amendment
Tags:
Technorati: gun control politics Bush red state blue state
Comments:
#2 Posted by Harley W Daugherty 
on 04/19 at 11:50 PM -
yep Buzz is right, think of all those illegal guns that would flow over teh border… and most would be FullAuto…
#3 Posted by Christian on 04/20 at 04:13 AM -
In their mind, they are consistent when they are both against the 2nd amendment, and are against Bush’s fascist Government. It goes to their core values: First, they firmly believe in the axiom that “Violence Never Solves Anything.” These are the generations that were raised by Dr. Spock, and the notion that if you talk to someone, and “Understand” them, we can all get along without ever raising a hand in anger. Of course this notion is incredibly naive, as there are some problems that only violence can resolve, and, most importantly, not everyone wants to talk to us.
Secondly, they firmly believe that the constitution is a living, breathing document that must change with the times to reflect the values of the people our modern age. So the Second Amendment, to them, is outdated, and not one of the rights that we need in our society today. Citizens no longer need to protect themselves, as we are not frontier folk out in the wilderness anymore. Thats the province of the Police and Military. Why have these arms of the fascists if they are not here for the benefit of the people? I’ve read this arguement a couple of times this week online, and it seems to me to be a very easy way to get around the notion that they are all protected rights, and when we start picking and choosing the ones we like, where does it end?
When you take these two in concert with each other, you see that they feel they are the ones truly that are protecting us, and our constitution. The hypocracy that to protect some rights you have to destroy others is lost on them, especially if they feel the right conflicts with their notions of right and wrong.
#4 Posted by Rann Aridorn on 04/20 at 05:18 AM -
The people who most loudly scream that the government is coming to take away their freedoms are the people that most want to take away our ability to do something about it. (And usually throw a lot of defeatism in there at the same time. Apparently internet bitching can accomplish what armed resistance can’t.)
I’ve already put forth my theories on the various reasons Left-wingers want guns taken out of the equation, I don’t want to repeat myself again. As Filibuster said, “Why is it that the lessons we claim to learn after such tragedies are the ones we already claimed to know?”
#5 Posted by Zinger on 04/20 at 03:36 PM -
Jim,
You are asking for consistency. That is not a reasonable demand of Left Wingers. Left Wingers want the government to control everyone’s lives, but only when the government is controlled by the Left Wing. They are the embodiment of “Do as I say, not as I do.”
#6 Posted by Buzzion on 04/21 at 05:50 PM -
Here’s a question. How do you debate someone when they want you to explain why most people in a society will follow the laws in a society? In other words how do you talk to someone about a subject when they refuse to accept the common sense of the underlying themes?
RSS (Subscribe)
Tip jars (Donate today!)
#1 Posted by Buzzion
on 04/19 at 09:24 PM -
One who believes banning guns in the U.S. need only look at the success of stopping illegal drugs and aliens crossing our borders to realize how utterly stupid it would be.