Quote of the day—Heather Wilhelm

In the wake of Sunday’s horrific Texas church shooting, America’s chattering classes promptly responded with silent, respectful, and somber reflection, holding off on divisive and caustic political debates for the day.

Unfortunately for all of us, that was over on Earth 2.

Heather Wilhelm
November 8, 2017
Gun Control and Magical Thinking
[She goes on to say:

Government bureaucracy often fails. It should be held accountable; it is not always our friend. To think otherwise, in fact, might be the ultimate in magical thinking.



5 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Heather Wilhelm

  1. It seems to me that the big attraction for gun control on the part of the liberal community has to do with their desire to always have someone else do their dirty work so they can feel good but not be bothered with the details or accountability. I do not see this as any different from their view of compassion which a conservative would call compulsion. It is part and parcel of the same mental state. We are forced (ultimately under threat of death from State exercise of force even though they only advertise consequences of fines and imprisonment) to pay taxes to address poverty, homelessness, drug abuse, abortion and any other cause of the day. Liberals are going to solve your problem for you because you must be incapable of doing it yourself or the problem would not exist in the first place; and they are going to do it by first taking your money and then compelling you to meet their prescriptive demands. Notice that there is no admission of mutual culpability for the liberals’ part in generating or perpetuating the ills of society. If conservatives were only enlightened enough, there would be no problems. For a liberal, there are no bounds to “magical thinking” because they cannot understand or refuse to understand reality.

  2. Need it be said?
    She starts out by referring to advocates of coercion as “liberals”. That right there, I’ve come to see, is a mark of the programmed mind. If one is thus actively participating in the most basic and obvious of contradictions, how are the more subtle points going to come through?

    She points out, correctly, that government can be as incompetent as anyone, then seems to laud a bipartisan attempt to ban bump stocks, which, even if rigorously enforced, would do nothing. Pointing out incompetence while calling for more.

    Seems to favor the concept of working together with the enemy rather than defeating them.

    Seems not to understand than a ban is a government-enforced monopoly granted to law-breakers.

    The article is advocating the old Progressive Republican Party line which calls for enforcement of existing infringements against the second amendment, apparently expecting to be seen as reasonable, or more grown-up, for doing so.

    On the latter point, she addresses the “failure” of the Air Force to report, but doesn’t seem to understand that even if they had reported, the guy would still be able get guns illegally, or kill large numbers of people using means other than guns, or both.

    Points out government incompetence, then calls for the proven failure of a government solution.

    Laws don’t stop law-breakers from breaking laws.

    How many times does this have to be pointed out, only to be ignored in the next “pro-gun” essay? Instead we’re given essays that call for better pre-crime enforcement (a stronger police/surveillance state). I believe that only an idiot, or someone who is evil, or someone in a hypnotic state (emotionally bonded with the authoritarian system, a la John McCain, the Bush family, et al), or in a coma, would have to be reminded of that more than once;

    Law-breakers break laws. Can we agree on that, or no?

    Also, when laws go against basic principles of human rights, as second amendment infringement laws do, more and more people will break those laws while feeling no guilt for doing so..

    You could “tighten up” enforcement of all the current second amendment infringements, and even add a few more, enforcing them as hard as any government ever enforced anything, and things would get worse, not better. More violent, not more peaceful. Anyone who fails to understand THAT is engaged in magical thinking.

    So don’t think you have a point in pointing out that the Air Force “failed” us. You don’t. At best it’s a data point, evidence, to show that reduction of crime or improvements to safety are not, and have never been, the true reasons why governments hate armed citizens.

    All governments hate armed citizens. Not criminals. The armed citizens they hate the most are the principled, honest, peaceful, patriotic and faithful armed citizens– Those are the people who pose the greatest threat to the authoritarian system.

  3. The inherent failure of gun control is bureaucrats. The more centralized, the more all powerful, the more it becomes equally corrupt, inefficient and non functional. The problem is that the bureaucrats are divorced from the results of their actions. Now, if we prosecuted a few bureaucrats for corruption and general doofusness then promptly hanged them in the Washington mall, we might get some attention. After all if socialist Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea can do this, it must be OK.

  4. She’s wrong about “government being held responsible”. It’s literally impossible for you to hold government responsible. It’s a collection of individuals that in many ways is there to prevent those individuals from being held responsible. What happens if you sue the government, and you win? You get paid out of the public coffers, which means that the money comes from your taxes, and your neighbor’s taxes. The government ultimately isn’t held responsible, the entire community is held responsible, for what is likely the action of a single individual, or a small group of them.

    It is only when the individuals who make the decisions in government are held personally accountable for the official decisions they make, will we see any significant action. As it stands now, they have no “skin in the game”.

    • I really appreciate dittybopper’s comment. In my earlier comment, I forgot to consider the infinite immunity that bureaucracies are endowed with. It would certainly be a different world if bureaucrats, prosecutors and judges were individually held accountable for malfeasance. I am afraid, however, that this will never be much more than a dream. The State has evolved to such a closed environment that no one person has the ability to blow the cover off any kind of malfeasance without significant detriment to themselves, so not much gets done. Even if it does see the light of day and gets widely reported, the guilty parties just ignore and obfuscate until something else can take the spotlight off of them. Just look at the treatment of conservative non-profits by the IRS if you want an easy example. Too bad we have Civil Service protections for the rank and file instead of the old patronage system. It is interesting to note that the Congressional Budget Office that provides Congress with all of their reviews of effects of potential legislation is staffed completely with “at will” employees. If Congress can demand that of their employees, why can’t we demand the same of “our” government employees?

Comments are closed.