PDA

View Full Version : Why Did it Have to be ... Guns?




CCTelander
02-19-2018, 05:47 PM
Since victim disarmament (it's proponents call it "gun control") is once again, sadly, at the forefront of political discussion right now, I offer this from L. Neil Smith:


Why Did it Have to be ... Guns?
by L. Neil Smith
lneil@lneilsmith.org

Attribute to L. Neil Smith’s The Libertarian Enterprise

L. Neil Smith’s most famous essay, widely reprinted, and we here reprint it again!

Over the past 30 years, I’ve been paid to write almost two million words, every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and gun-ownership. Naturally, I’ve thought about the issue a lot, and it has always determined the way I vote.

People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single-issue thinker, and a single-issue voter, but it isn’t true. What I’ve chosen, in a world where there’s never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician—or political philosophy—is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.

Make no mistake: all politicians—even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership—hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it’s an X-ray machine. It’s a Vulcan mind-meld. It’s the ultimate test to which any politician—or political philosophy—can be put.

If a politician isn’t perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash—for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything—without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn’t your friend no matter what he tells you.

If he isn’t genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody’s permission, he’s a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.

What his attitude—toward your ownership and use of weapons—conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn’t trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?

If he doesn’t want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?

If he makes excuses about obeying a law he’s sworn to uphold and defend—the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights—do you want to entrust him with anything?

If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil—like “Constitutionalist”—when you insist that he account for himself, hasn’t he betrayed his oath, isn’t he unfit to hold office, and doesn’t he really belong in jail?

Sure, these are all leading questions. They’re the questions that led me to the issue of guns and gun ownership as the clearest and most unmistakable demonstration of what any given politician—or political philosophy—is really made of.

He may lecture you about the dangerous weirdos out there who shouldn’t have a gun—but what does that have to do with you? Why in the name of John Moses Browning should you be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others? Didn’t you lay aside the infantile notion of group punishment when you left public school—or the military? Isn’t it an essentially European notion, anyway—Prussian, maybe—and certainly not what America was supposed to be all about?

And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdos, this is about you, and it has been, all along.

Try it yourself: if a politician won’t trust you, why should you trust him? If he’s a man—and you’re not—what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women? If “he” happens to be a woman, what makes her so perverse that she’s eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn’t want you to have?

On the other hand—or the other party—should you believe anything politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons? What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other countries?

Makes voting simpler, doesn’t it? You don’t have to study every issue—health care, international trade—all you have to do is use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they hate it.

And that’s why I’m accused of being a single-issue writer, thinker, and voter.

But it isn’t true, is it?



Permission to redistribute this article is herewith granted by the author—provided that it is reproduced unedited, in its entirety, and appropriate credit given.

http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2018/tle957-20180121-02.html

Anti Federalist
02-19-2018, 05:50 PM
Try it yourself: if a politician won’t trust you, why should you trust him? If he’s a man—and you’re not—what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women? If “he” happens to be a woman, what makes her so perverse that she’s eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn’t want you to have?

/thread

/discussion

/debate

/political infighting

/period

CCTelander
02-19-2018, 05:53 PM
/thread

/discussion

/debate

/political infighting

/period


This particular issue should have been settled, decisively, a long LONG time ago. If pro-gunners and 2nd Amendment advocates had had the courage of their convictions, or even actually believed their own rhetoric, it would have been. I have little use for the pro-gun movement for this reason.

DamianTV
02-19-2018, 06:10 PM
Sadly, I think this is entirely predicable.

Not so much on this specific event, but with the destabilization of the minds of the shooters, exacerbated by SSRIs. The entire Anti Gun Narrative is used as a distractionary tactic to prevent people from asking "why are so many of these shooters on pharmaceutical drugs"? It is the default go-to any time that Gun Violence occurs on this scale. Hegalian Dialectic, yet again. Problem Reaction Solution. Problem is kids go crazy and shoot themselves. Reaction is people get pissed off and want something done about it, but with their focus placed on Guns, they will focus on more Gun Control. Solution is to give the govt even more power by taking away peoples rights to have guns. The entire thing also financially benefits the drug companies by increasing their profit margins because they also have their own Hegalian Dialectic which serves both them and govt. Big Pharma creates a problem by selling the SSRIs, which creates a Problem of unstable behavior, to which people will react against their behavior and not the drugs, and that allows for even more drugs to be sold.

Nice downward spiral.

heavenlyboy34
02-19-2018, 07:38 PM
Problem with appealing to amendment II is the "militia" part. Specious argument of course, but most people don't understand the legalese and read their own interpretation into it. I prefer amendment X.

TheTexan
02-19-2018, 08:10 PM
This particular issue should have been settled, decisively, a long LONG time ago. If pro-gunners and 2nd Amendment advocates had had the courage of their convictions, or even actually believed their own rhetoric, it would have been. I have little use for the pro-gun movement for this reason.

They just didn't vote hard enough I guess.

euphemia
02-19-2018, 09:02 PM
We can go lay down in the street in front of the Capitol.

TheTexan
02-19-2018, 09:19 PM
We can go lay down in the street in front of the Capitol.

And bring signs too.

Waving signs really gets their attention.

DamianTV
02-19-2018, 09:21 PM
They just didn't vote hard enough I guess.

If voting ever resulted in meaningful change, it would be prohibited.

CCTelander
02-19-2018, 11:26 PM
If voting ever resulted in meaningful change, it would be prohibited.


"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to DamianTV again."

Anti Federalist
02-19-2018, 11:36 PM
This particular issue should have been settled, decisively, a long LONG time ago. If pro-gunners and 2nd Amendment advocates had had the courage of their convictions, or even actually believed their own rhetoric, it would have been. I have little use for the pro-gun movement for this reason.

It might surprise you, but I disagree.

The pro gun movement has been one of the few successful political movements based on a freedom issue out there.

I can recall when there was serious consideration being given to banning all handguns at the federal level, "permitted" concealed carry was very rare, constitutional carry unheard of, bans of "assault" weapons commonplace and so on.

Zippy will certainly refute this with discredited Gallup polling on the issue, but more people have more guns than ever before.

And violent crime, in spite of occurrences such as this latest, continue to remain at record low levels.

Imagine how well off we'd be if all ten of the bill of rights was defended as vigorously.

If there was a GOA or NRA or SAAMI for the 4th amendment, or the 10th.

All that said, I understand your point...and when the rubber finally meets the road, I agree.

I'm not sure what I think might happen when that "great gettin' up' day finally happens.

But when the state of Massachusetts demanded that everybody turn in their "bump stocks" for destruction with no compensation, last time I looked, they had got four.

shakey1
02-20-2018, 10:38 AM
2nd amendment rights are our last that are relatively intact... the rest have been effectively gutted.

pcosmar
02-20-2018, 10:52 AM
2nd amendment rights are our last that are relatively intact... the rest have been effectively gutted.

They are only "intact" if you have permission.

Anti Federalist
02-20-2018, 10:57 AM
They are only "intact" if you have permission.

No doubt, I think nobody doubts they are on life support.

The 4th, for instance, is a dead letter for all intents and purposes.