Monday, October 13, 2008

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.

6 comments:

Joe M 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.