Skip to main content

On the limits of State power in America: a pro-gun post mike w. would love

J D Tuccille at Disloyal Opposition reveals a politically incorrect truth [and one that, to his credit, Dana Garrett has always known]: it really doesn't matter if a President Barack Obama--despite current protestations to the contrary--wants to ban guns or restrict their ownership.

Why?

Because, quite frankly, most gun owners in America will engage in civil disobedience.

Cold dead hands and all that.

My liberal and progressive friends may be aghast at the idea, but millions of Americans have absolutely no intention of ceasing to cling to their guns.

So in that respect--given that Senator John McCain only rates a C+ from the National Rifle Association--whoever gets elected President ... really doesn't matter.

Comments

Anonymous said…
This a a very good point and one that is not often considered. That's why we have to remove the need for guns first. It's the harder job and maybe an unreachable ideal, but it's a hell of a great thing to shoot for.

Er, pun not intended. Where's my coffee?
Delaware Watch said…
Joe M. makes a good point. I would put it a tad differently, though. We need to foster a society which makes gun violence horrifying to the conscience w/o interfering w/ gun ownership. I wonder why (forgive me Libertarians) the government doesn't engage in a massive public relations campaign against gun violence like it did (I always thought successfully) against forest fires.
Tyler Nixon said…
Forest fires aren't part and parcel, tools of the trade, of an immense profitable black market.

Illegal guns and their use in the violent street drug trade are not susceptible to educating anyone out of using.

Until the failed prohibitionist drug war policies are ended there will continue to be black-market turf wars and massive illegal profits (fueled by property crimes no less) that are secured by lawless thugs with weaponry of all sorts - firearms above all.
Mike W. said…
"Illegal guns and their use in the violent street drug trade are not susceptible to educating anyone out of using. "

Absolutely Tyler. Violent thugs will use the best tool avaliable to commit violent acts.

Dana - "a society which makes gun violence horrifying to the conscience w/o interfering w/ gun ownership."

I think we already have that Dana. Most Americans are horrified by random gun violence (although what difference does it make whether it was perpetrated with a gun or not?) The problem is that the small subset of the population responsible for most of the violence don't really have a conscience. For them violence is a means to an end and a gun is merely an effective tool to get what they want from others by force.

This may surprise you Steve, but I actually have some disagreement about what JD's said, but that'll have to be a post of it's own on my blog.
Anonymous said…
There was no mention of Great Britain.
I keep reading of increased violence there. And a very successful collection of guns, from the populace.

Was that because the confiscation was preceded by harmless 'REGISTRATION"?

Same with Australia?
Hube said…
We need to foster a society which makes gun violence horrifying to the conscience w/o interfering w/ gun ownership.

With all due respect Dana, Mike W. is correct. What makes you think we do not have this right now? A public relations campaign is terrific, but until the LAW recognizes that folks committing a crime with a gun should be dealt with -- and dealt with severely -- then no such campaign will see success.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...