Thursday, April 18, 2013

President Crybaby and Gun Control...

Petulance and foot stomping are the order of the day from Mr. Obama as the various gun-control (or "anti-gun", according to Senator Harry Reid) legislation pieces were defeated:
The gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill,” Mr. Obama said in the White House rose garden about 90 minutes after the vote. “It came down to politics.”
As always, projection is part of the we read on:
As he spoke, Mr. Obama was surrounded by family members of victims of the Newtown, Conn., school shooting. Also with him was former Rep. Gabby Giffords of Arizona, wounded in an assassination attempt.
Senator Rand Paul is right, no matter what Greg Sargent says, that the President IS using the victims' families as political props. Sargent tries to argue that the families can think for themselves, and while I don't doubt that, the fact they appear with Obama at times like these suggests to me that they are willing to be manipulated and act props to "the cause". So who exactly is the one that is making things about politics?

"Expanded background checks" sounds nice in theory, but it does, despite Presidential demagoguery to the contrary, lay the groundwork for what amounts to a national registry. How?  In requiring a check to every possible purchase, even private person-to-person sales, it creates a paper trail that can be used to justify such a database.

It may not be today, and may not be tomorrow, but the next time a mass murder occurs and emotions are running high, all they would have to do is introduce a simple one page bill that would repeal the line in the alleged "commonsense" Manchin-Toomey bill forbidding a national registry.  You can call me paranoid and conspiratorial, but confiscation is the end game.  It has to be, logically.  Obviously, the bill was defeated, but Harry Reid, as the Majority Leader, changed his vote to a "Nay" in a procedural fashion in order to bring up the bill at a later time.

The blindingly obvious point, which many miss (or willfully ignore) is that none of these amendments or bills would have stopped the shootings at Newtown, Aurora, or Tuscon, as Senator Dianne Feinstein (the author of the ban on so-called "assault weapons") admits:

One would think that if these people had good intentions about trying to prevent these events from occurring, they would go about doing so in ways that, you know, actually could do so. Instead, we have wholesale attempts to deprive citizens of rights.

I had thus avoided writing about the issue, but with the Presidential temper-tantrum, his narcissistic preening, and his condescending moral superiority, it was time to address it.  I figured most of you could figure out where I stand on this issue, but this provided a good time to flesh out some thoughts.  So here we go...

I find most gun-control advocacy to be ill-informed, emotivistic, demagogic, and at worst, morally infantile.  Most who advocate such a position are authoritarian at heart who have little or no understanding of guns, how they work, or even basic knowledge of parts.  People who don't know the difference between automatic and semi-automatic, or the difference between a magazine and a clip.  People who make cosmetic features of a gun the basis on whether it ought to be banned or not.  That last point is the entire premise of the ban on so-called "assault weapons".  In other words, it looks scary and thus should not be permitted. This is not a premise on which serious thought and policy ought to be based.

I get why a government would want to restrict gun ownership; an armed populace is the ultimate check on unfettered government power.  It's a form of the old Cold War doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). The Second Amendment is not primarily about sport, hunting, or even protecting oneself from criminals.  It is about the tyranny of the overbearing State - as all the amendments in the Bill of Rights are, which is why gun-control advocates that says the Second Amendment being either a) a collective right or b) outdated are being disingenuous at best, and outright liars at worst.

Gun-control is about people control, because even the most irrational gun-grabber (like Michael Bloomberg, Andrew Cuomo, and Martin O'Malley) understands (or maybe he doesn't), that a gun is an inanimate object that can't load, cock, and fire itself.  It's a tool (like all objects) that is useful in the hands of one who understands its purpose, and is harmful in the hands of someone with bad intentions or no knowledge of its use. No law is going to change that latter fact.  

It's clich├ęd to say it, but it bears repeating: criminals inherently do not follow the law.  So all that is left is to punish the law-abiding citizens.  The advocates say this isn't going to be the case, but all it takes is to look at numbers where there is strict regulations regarding ownership of firearms - criminals still have them, and the law-abiding can't protect themselves.  

But that's what the police are for! The police are a reactionary force; they respond after the crime has been committed and they investigate and apprehend post-facto.  There is no help in responding to the commission of a crime.  So all I can conclude is that the advocates for gun-control are soft on crime, logically speaking.  No amount of wishing it away and depriving the law-abiding will change that.

One last thing, tying all of this together with the emotivism stemming from the Sandy Hook mass-murder has been the notion that at least on the background checks, "ninety percent" of Americans favored expanding them.  But if we are going to use polls to indicate the winds, we should probably also look at the latest Gallup survey that has only 4% of the population making guns the most pressing issue facing the country.  So for all the hot air and "political capital" used on the issue, it has barely moved the needle.

And how.

It should make perfect sense to anyone now why the advocates for gun restrictions have to resort to emotivism, demagoguery, and good old fashioned manipulation to get what they want.  The facts just simply aren't on their side.  The only way to try and get it done is what Dr. K calls "emotional blackmail".  Eventually, people will see (and have seen) that they are being played and will turn against it.  It's just a repeated cry of wolf.

No comments: