Substance or Hypocritical Posturing? Which one works for you?

The following started as my comment at Say Uncle, but I decided it needed its own post.  It’s in response to the now age-old maneuver of calling for more enforcement of existing anti-gun laws rather than passing more, and considering ourselves clever negotiators.  It doesn’t matter who said it recently.  It’s been said for many years;

“…should enforce existing laws rather than propose additional laws they said could infringe on Second Amendment rights.”

Additional laws “could” infringe?  What; existing laws couldn’t infringe on Second Amendment rights?  Not a single one of them?  Next time someone’s house is busted into, guns are confiscated and destroyed, lives are turned upside down over a technical violation when no one has harmed or threatened any other person, you’ll be perfectly OK with that?  It’d be great, so long as no one bothers you with more laws?  You thought Ruby Ridge was cool, and you want more of the same, so long as it’s convenient for you?  You want to keep innocent people in jail over paper-work errors, or over an inch of barrel length or a quarter inch of buttstock?  Would that make you a proud supporter of the second amendment or a sadistic and immoral jackass with anti American tendencies?  You decide.

Lets put this into perspective; “The Justice Department should enforce existing laws against negroes rather than propose additional laws that could infringe on Civil Rights.”

That sounds stupid as all hell, doesn’t it?  How many people would take that as a pro Civil Rights stance and call for more of it?  Yet we have been conditioned over the years to think that’s perfectly acceptable language when discussing second amendment rights.  Any politician says something stupid like that and we think, “Yeah, Baby!  You tell ’em!  That guy’s on OUR side, Man!”

Oh, how far we have fallen.

Would we sit idly by and accept a federal department of alcohol, tobacco, negroes and explosives (BATNE)?  Do you like the juxtaposition there?  Lovely, isn’t it?  Should anyone sit by and accept such a thing as an inevitability, and proudly claim that as a clever, politically “reasonable” stance?

If you reject the idea that gun restrictions equal crime control, and instead believe (as do I) that gun laws are not only counterproductive to their stated goals and an attack on liberty, but unconstitutional, you don’t call for more enforcement of them.  What would be the point in that, unless it’s an unprincipled attempt to appear “reasonable” to people who know nothing of the issue and nothing of the constitution’s history?  For that matter, what law enforcement officer who has taken an oath to the constitution could in good conscience enforce any gun laws against peaceable citizens?

Are we trying to appeal to the sensibilities of idiots at the expense of our credibility, at the expense of the constitution, at the expense of reason, at the expense of public harmony, and at the expense of liberty?  Yeah; that makes us look like geniuses.  Sure it does.  Or cowards.

It’s hypocritical.  It’s McCainian (to perhaps coin a new term).  It’s relying on ignorance for public support.  It’s what Republicans do when they listen to their super-smart advisors.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to clean my guns.  And to “fondle” them.  You know, ’cause I have a small penis or something.


2 thoughts on “Substance or Hypocritical Posturing? Which one works for you?

  1. Very well said! To which I’ll add that EVERY gun control law passed since 1934 has been a flagrant violation of every American’s inalienable right to defend their own lives. The party with the greatest interest in seeing to it that this right is negated is a despotic government, which is exactly what the Second Amendment was created to protect us from, in the first place. That we have seen one of our most fundamental human rights gradually and stealthily whittled away over the course of seventy-five years doesn’t make it any less dangerous to us. Incrementalism has been the chosen method of those who would disarm us because it is the least noticeable. It works even better when you can disguise it so well that those who are being disarmed will actually willingly participate in their own disarmament, under the deliberately misguided belief that they are protecting the very thing they are helping to destroy.

Comments are closed.