Quote of the day—Borepatch

You meet different sorts of people who advocate for gun control.  Some of them are hard core control freaks who just want to crush flyover country, but if you’re like me you don’t run across them very often.  Mostly you run across people who aren’t shooters or gun owners, who haven’t thought about the issue very much, but who are disturbed about the constant media drumbeat about shootings and who just want to “do something”.

We need these people on our side, or at least standing on the sidelines.  How do we separate them from the gun control pack.

My last post was how I approach this: I’m not opposed to gun control, I’m opposed to stupid and useless gun control.  This is a mind virus that I’m trying to infect them with.  I want to sow seeds of doubt in their minds to get them out of the gun controller’s camp and onto the sidelines.  Hopefully (if the virus really takes) it will begin the process where they actually start to think about things and they may even end up on our side.
It’s a battle for the (very large) middle ground.  In the long run, we’re not viable without it

March 2, 2018
A Gun Rights Mind Virus
[In a lot of ways I think this is a great idea. Particularly since, as near as I can tell, all gun control is stupid and useless.

But, it ignores the principle aspect. Suppose it was found it was not “useless” to implement policy of summary execution for anyone to be caught on video committing a crime of violence, i.e. violent crime dramatically dropped. A little later lawmakers decided to extend the policy to possession of a gun or ammunition and violent crime dropped even further.

The safety net of the right to keep and bear arms just went away. Stupid? Almost for certain, particularly since summary execution is now viewed as acceptable. What next? Political speech? But the question of “stupid” is going to be subject to debate. We are now on a slippery slope well into tyranny hell with no recourse.

Bottom line is that I like it but it needs to be tempered with at least a bit of philosophy that respects the fundamental, natural, right to self-defense from both criminals and a runaway government.—Joe]


7 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Borepatch

  1. Thanks, Joe. I agree on the rights point, but I’ve been using this for a while and it’s surprisingly effective. We need allies in this fight.

    • I agree we need allies and I don’t doubt that it is effective in a lot of cases. Just be careful.

  2. I think it’s a GREAT idea. You are right re the philosophical aspect, but most people don’t think that way (arguably they emote rather than think most of the time).

  3. Normally Borepatch is pretty good about getting it right on things. But on this issue he missed the boat entirely. Once we accept the idea that even ONE SINGLE LAW infringing on a right is acceptable we have accepted the idea that
    and and ALL such laws are equally acceptable. It’s the “nose of the camel into the tent” concept. For a Right to actually BE a Right it must be absolute, inviolable with zero exceptions for zero reasons. Anything else and it ceases to be considered a Right and becomes a Privilege….and Privileges can be granted, modified or withdrawn for any or NO reason without recourse.

    • Dan,

      I co-blog with Borepatch and you’ve got it exactly right.


  4. These silly little control freaks who call themselfs liberal are nothing of the sort.
    They never think beyond the feel good surface manifastations of what they propose. Unintended consequences always come into play ie: summary execution for firearms posession. A man with a gun will not surrender, he will shoot it out.
    Even cops who don’t like citizens with firearms will figure it out quickly and avoid confrontation. A raid later on a citizens home for this reason will ultimately lead to preemtive raids on police staging areas.
    Citizens won’t wait for the police to come to them in overwhelming force.
    We all hope it will never come to this, and I feel it won’t. The type of empty thinking by many of these snowflakes needs to be rebutted as often as possible.
    Who knows maybe a few of them will learn to think logically
    Paul in Texas

  5. The “stupid and useless” approach has a lot of merit. It’s not easy, because a lot of things that are useless appear otherwise to people who are not well informed. Especially when the other side is lying through its teeth, as is the norm.
    Consider for example “assault weapons”. To uninformed people, that means AR-15, which means machine gun. But to the opposition it means any weapon they can get away with sweeping into that invented category. It’s never the same thing twice running; a few years ago, in some leftist state, the definition was broad enough to define a Mauser Broomhandle pistol as an “assault weapon”.
    Another issue is that these arguments are utilitarian rather than principled. A blunt way of putting it: it’s ok to get rid of a human right if doing so delivers a greater good to more people. But by what principle is it valid to make me defenseless if someone else commits murder? The “useless” approach amounts to “disarming Paul doesn’t help”. That’s true. But suppose it did. Then it might be “well, disarming people hurts more than it helps”. Also true, though those who attack Lott and Keck want to pretend otherwise. But again, suppose it was not true, and more guns really does correlate to more crime. Does that invalidate the 2nd Amendment, or the basic natural right to self defense? It does not.
    All this translates to: when you pick your tactics, understand their limitations, and don’t lose sight of the larger picture and the true principles at risk.

Comments are closed.