“Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them.”
– George Orwell, “1984”
In the wake of the horrific massacre in Las Vegas Sunday came the inevitable cry from the left: “Ban guns! All of them!”
A 2015 article with this title from self-admitted “anti-gun liberal” Phoebe Maltz Bovy makes the predictable argument that somehow violence will be erased from society if only those nasty pieces of machinery were eradicated. She is one of a group who is “quietly convinced that guns are terrible.”
These are the people who did not grow up in a “gun culture” (as Bovy terms it) and simply cannot – or will not – grasp the concept that guns are a tool. “It’s not about dividing society into ‘good’ and ‘bad’ gun owners. It’s about placing gun ownership itself in the ‘bad’ category,” Bovy writes. “On the pro-gun-control side of things, there’s far too much timidity. What’s needed to stop all gun violence is a vocal ban guns contingent. Getting bogged down in discussions of what’s feasible keeps what needs to happen – no more guns – from entering the realm of possibility. Public opinion needs to shift. The no-guns stance needs to be an identifiable place on the spectrum, embraced unapologetically, if it’s to be reckoned with.” [Emphasis in original.]
Bovy’s position picks up steam with every gun-related tragedy, and needless to say it’s reaching a shrieking crescendo after Sunday’s massacre. There is no doubt in the mind of liberals that the weapons themselves leaped from the floor and caused the horrific deaths and injuries. No human intervention was necessary.
Critics of this column will quickly point out the sheer amount of destruction caused by Stephen Paddock would not have been possible had Paddock not had access to the cadre of high-powered, fast-shooting weaponry he did. They are undeniably correct. Some terrorism is beyond the scope of individual defense.
But is this a reason to trash the Second Amendment? Of course not.
Progressives have never, ever answered one simple question when it comes to the notion of gun control or gun bans, to wit: How do you keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and madmen? Whatever sick motivation Paddock had, he prepared long and thoroughly for his actions. Laws and bans would not have stopped him.
But this makes no difference to politicians, who are of course using this tragedy to spout ignorant twaddle solely designed to further push their Constitution-weakening agenda. The very last thing politicians want is firearms in the hands of the people, because as long as those stubborn knuckle-dragging troglodytes insist on being armed, the government can never get too big.
Progressives have tried to discourage the relevance of gun ownership, believing that in our civilized age, we don’t “need” guns. But when the chips are down, people know what’s important. They know they need to protect themselves – not just from the threat of criminal madmen, but more importantly from the threat of an unconstitutional government determined to disarm its citizens by whatever means possible (the first well-documented step on the road to tyranny).
Attorney and constitutional scholar KrisAnne Hall asks, “Do you trust those in government, now and forever in the future, to not take your life, liberty, or property through the force of government? If the answer to that question is ‘no,’ the gun control debate is over.”
The horrific death toll from the Las Vegas massacre is but the tiniest grain of sand when compared to the estimated 262 million people killed just in the 20th century by “democide” – death by government. And – surprise – those people had been disarmed first. This, of course, is why the Founding Fathers included the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
As the Firearms Policy Coalition noted in a press release, “[T]he Second Amendment’s guarantees are not a matter of convenience, nor of need, nor even of want. The basic human right to armed self-defense against unjust force is precisely why our Founders enshrined it into our Constitution – to protect it against the capricious nature of popular opinion, the momentum of the mob, and those who would seek to limit it to a watered-down, second-class privilege for some.”
Generally, those who won’t admit to the benefits of an armed society have the most to gain from disarming that society and don’t care what everyone else has to lose. Those who oppose the Second Amendment are either evil or stupid. The politicians are arguably the evil ones, since they’re so busily engaged in dismantling this impediment to their ultimate power grab.
But the progressives are the stupid ones, because they live in a perpetual state of denial. They deny anything bad could ever happen to them in which a firearm might change the outcome. They deny people have evil intentions above and beyond the “he had a rough childhood” defense. They want decent, peaceable people disarmed because of the crimes of the wicked.
Progressive seem to hold a belief that no one should be able to defend himself and a naïve confidence that evil can be stopped by removing tools. Believe me, if guns aren’t available, thugs and murderers and terrorists turn to other means to kill: acid, knives, vehicles, etc. Do we ban shoes and underwear because of shoe-bombers and underwear-bombers? Do we ban airplanes because of 9/11? Do we ban vehicles because terrorists are now using them to mow down crowds? How far do we take this, folks? Firearms at least give victims a fightin’ chance of surviving and taking out the murderer.
One leftist sarcastically noted, “Sure, you can’t stop a madman, so let’s at least make sure they are well-armed.”
No, dear, you’re wrong. You can’t stop a madman, so let’s at least make sure there’s a chance his targets are well-armed. It is – literally – the only prayer to stop him.
Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind, folks. Gun-free zones are dangerous enough. For God’s sake, we don’t need a gun-free nation.
Media wishing to interview Patrice Lewis, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.