Random thought of the day

I wonder why there is such a disconnect with people’s thought processes.

The shooter in Tucson had mental problems which may have been made worse by heavy marijuana use. Some people wanting to “do something” started talking about banning the magazines of greater than 10 rounds. How many of those same people never even thought that such a ban would be no more effective than the ban on marijuana that same guy was using? How could they possibly think that such a ban would be effective when the ban on marijuana is not effective?

People apparently don’t realize that “bans” don’t eliminate something. They only provide a legal means of punishment for those that get caught with the banned item. The banned object or substance does not cease to exist. As near as I can tell people imagine they will be transported into some sort of fantasy land where the banned item dematerializes or something.

Once you realize that bans only provide for punishment of those that get caught you can see that bans to “prevent” some greater society harm are unlikely to be successful. The “ban” of murder precludes the proposed ban of more than 10 round magazines of being of any significant use. The only consequence is that it makes murder “double ungood” or some such thing.

This leads me to conclude that in proposing 10 round magazine limits the Brady Campaign leaders must think possession of normal magazine capacities are on the same order of magnitude of evil as murder. If the possession is insignificant on the “evil scale” the additional law is of no benefit because the “ban” on murder has the issue covered. But they don’t think the ban on murder is sufficient, hence the evil inherent in possession normal magazines must be some significant proportion of the evil inherent in murder.

Either that or they just don’t have the thought processes to think clearly.


5 thoughts on “Random thought of the day

  1. The Left sees lawful carrying of a gun, and relevant accessories, as much worse than murder, rape, or other violent crime. The left believes, fundamentally, that violent criminals don’t deserve punishment. They find your wanting to stand on your hind legs odious. You wanting to protect yourself is an indictment of their failures to take responsibility for their own self defense.

    The anti-gun Left has two parts:
    The culturally poor have endemic crime, and failure of the police to help. A kid who couldn’t stop his mommy’s boyfriend from beating her, who has felt the humiliation of being robbed, grows up with tremendous guilt. If he in turn beats his woman and kids, gets drunk or uses drugs like his male role models, the guilt only gets worse. Being against guns allows him to think “there is nothing I could have done”.

    The limousine liberals are guilty about their undeserved wealth, very much caught up in their strange religion of secular humanism. Being reflexively anti-gun is like being anti-breast cancer, or anti-meat – a fashionable and correct ritual piety. Moreover, by declining the superficial wisdom of their media elites, you are a class enemy with suspect motives and heretical ideas. You aren’t seeking victim-hood status, so you can only want a gun for nefarious purposes.

    The vast majority of lefties had no opinion on 30 round magazines until last week. If they had an opinion from a previous newscycle, it was long forgotten. It is now received wisdom that high capacity mags are evil. Whatever you say or write, you haven’t changed the underlying presumption that you are arguing for something evil. You aren’t allowed to challenge the conclusion that your gun is evil.

    As a metaphor, I’m against eating live puppies. If someone were to argue about their right to eat live puppies, I wouldn’t begin to pay attention to their arguments; I’d only be interested in learning more as a means to stopping them. If I found out they had a powerful lobby devoted to enjoying the agony of the puppies as the are slowly eaten, I’d assume the worse motives and conspiracies. I can’t imagine any logic or arguments that would sway me from my presupposition. In the minds of the Left, wanting responsibility for oneself (including self-defense, which includes your gun and mag) is like torturing puppies.

  2. When you try to twist reality to fit your ideas you are a leftist.

    When you adjust your ideas to fit reality you are conservative.

    It must say something about the lack of reasoning ability among the human race that people keep trying communism and socialism over and over thinking that they can get it right when all evidence points to the contrary, or that we can “ban something out of existence” whether it be alcohol/drugs, handguns, or nuclear weapons. Is it perhaps some innate God Complex that makes Leftists want to reshape the world in their own image?

    And when you point out that they can’t achieve the reality they want they accuse you of “not working towards a better world”. Call it “Peterson Syndrome” or “Insanity” it all ends up to the same thing, people who have the right to vote trying to impose their fantasy world on you. At least when they were militant communists they tried to do it the old fashioned way, with violence and intimidation. This is why we can’t let up on the gun rights fight now, we have to double down and secure our rights so firmly in reality that the Leftists begin to think of civil rights with the same concrete ideology that they think about universal suffrage.

  3. “Is it perhaps some innate God Complex that makes Leftists want to reshape the world in their own image?”

    Yes, it is a God Complex–or, at least, a delusion that, because we can create little things, we can also “fix” chaotic systems. Take Herbert Hoover, for example: he was an engineer, and as such, he tried to engineer societies in Europe and America. When we had a collapse in 1920, Hoover tried to fix the agricultural industry–and it was stuck in a depression for ten years. As President, when the economy collapsed, he started the Great Depression–and FDR just followed in his footsteps.

    It’s one thing to design something complex, like a car. If something goes wrong, we replace a part, or re-program the injection system, or tweak a bolt. The car doesn’t care, because it has no mind, no feelings. But, because cars are complex, and we can fix them, we begin to think we can do things with societies as well–only, the part we are trying to replace, or reprogram, or tweak, is a living, thinking person, who might very well object to this tinkering, thank you very much!

    There are just some things that we can’t fix, and must leave to the ebb and flow of life. It’s a difficult thing for our highly-structured “engineering” minds to accept, though.

  4. There are several recent radio ads telling kids that drugs are “a choice”. They are banned, AND they’re a choice. It’s totally up to the individual. I very much doubt that the tragic irony has penetrated the brains of those people who produced the ads.

  5. “They are banned, AND they’re a choice.”

    The funny thing is, this is true, no matter what we ban, or don’t ban. We ban murder, rape, theft, and so forth–and rightly so, because these are evil, whether or not they are banned–but we are, and always will be, free to choose to do these things, or not. And so it is with sex, drugs, guns, knives, or anything else we might try to ban.

    As my children grow up, I want them to fully understand this: whether or not drugs are banned, you will always have the choice to do them, or not. And I will make the strongest case I can that they should not do them–because of the effects that they will have on their bodies and their minds.

    I won’t comment on the tragic irony of the radio ads, though, because I haven’t heard them.

Comments are closed.