Allowing anonymous gun purchases makes as much sense as allowing anonymous anthrax purchases.
Sten Deadio
February 2014
Comment to Supreme Court rejects NRA appeals
[Anthrax possession is not a specific enumerated right unless you consider it a form of arm in common use.
Their analogy is just as invalid as it would be if you were to substitute any of the following for “gun purchase”:
- “book purchase”
- “printing press purchase”
- “computer purchase”
- “association meetings”
- “religious meetings”
- “speech”
- “voting”
- “homosexuals”
- “Jews”
- “Catholics”
As is usual, this anti-gun person has no comprehension of principles.—Joe]
Anonymous is really the ideal form of lots of things.
When someone is anonymous about their beliefs, they are not forcing me to be a part of them.
Is it OK for the Gov. to buy guns and distribute them to various and sundry anonymous Gov. workers including soldiers? Is this guy morononymous or what?
Sten Deadio’s quote also exhibits a pathological (or intentional?) misunderstanding of the word “allow”. Something as highly popular as a self defense tool will always be available, either legally or illegally.
This cannot be overemphasized– all we are discussing when we talk about “allowing” firearm transactions is whether or not the strictly law-abiding will have them. Law-breakers and tyrants will always have them no matter what. Prohibitions create black markets, and prohibitions of such a high value item as a tool of self defense creates a very powerful black market, as law-breakers and tyrants are granted a government-enforced monopoly on the use of deadly force.
With that understanding (that criminal enterprises are strengthened by prohibitions in general, and by the prohibition of self defense in particular) we can begin to see the motivations involved. Certainly there are those who believe they are motivated by good intentions in their prohibitionist stance, but in aggregate they are none-the-less serving the will of the criminal mind.
Much evil has been done by hijacking and re-directing people’s desire to do good. So what is the antidote?
Basic principles for one, but you can talk basic principles all day and still fail to reach people. We have to be able to get through the very strong emotional ties, or allegiances, to the “faith” in government as the do-all problem solver. Emotions are the glue that holds a person to that allegiance. That’s the carrot, if you will, and bigotry (another emotion-based system) serves as the stick, i.e. the leftist is led TO government and led AWAY from us icky pro-freedom people, through emotion.
Any emotional argument or appeal, I submit, therefore strengthens the allegiance to the Dark Side. It’s reinforcing the system that got them there.
Joe; The pain on Mike Wallace’s face came from his own emotion after hearing a purely practical, purely honest, emotion-free assessment of his emotion-based proposals.