We’ve talked here in “Burke” and “Consequences” about the consequences the gun control movement hasn’t considered should their treasured gun ban backfire, be it in the response of the citizenry, or a potential spike in violent crime. Today, I’d like to go through the paradoxes one has to accept or be ignorant of, especially if one holds a particular viewpoint. There won’t be much here as the mindset is inherently self-defeating. However, it is prevalent enough that I feel it is worth mentioning.
It goes thusly: One who is anti-Trump to the point of seeing him as a threat to freedom, and who sees police as racist, trigger-happy killers is the last person who should also be supporting gun control.
It does not matter if you, who supports gun control desires “just” background checks at gun shows, and we can certainly debate the usefulness of that. The people you are voting for want much more, and even if they do not, it is in gun rights advocates best interest to assume they do. The reason for this is simple: every gun control haven in the country, California, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Illinois, and Connecticut being the standouts, always started with “we just want” background checks. They have since grown into full on weapons bans, ammunition registration, bans on self-defense, severe restrictions on concealed carry, a laborious permit process and so forth. Look no further than the I-639 in Washington State, which just got “all they wanted” about two years ago. Give an inch, gun control will always take a mile.
Now, let’s think more practically. If Trump is an authoritarian and a threat to freedom, which history does not bear out, but let’s roll with it, why on earth should civilian gun ownership be restricted? The 2nd Amendment, which gun control advocates have difficulty reading both in full and in context, was designed to protect against tyrannical governments. Why are we going to leave Americans with handguns, while the military has AR-15s? Eight years ago, Republicans were “paranoid” about the Democrats wanting to take away guns, even though there have been 4 gun ban bills in Congress since Sandy Hook. Now, with that evil Russian puppet on the mighty throne, these same people are ok with guns being taken away regardless.
The police issue is more complicated, and the reason for such is because of the overwhelming power the system has and how far it will go to protect itself. It is a bitch to convict a police officer, even in a clear cut case of murder. By the same token, I imagine, it will be damn near impossible to be cleared of self-defense against a particularly aggressive officer. And even if you are, I imagine the police force will know your name and your record when you are pulled over for speeding. I do not know how to tackle this point exactly. The main premise however stands. If police are trigger happy racist killers (which they generally aren’t.) What difference does it make whether the civilian has a gun or not?
So what is the point of supporting gun control with these premises? Simply put, there isn’t one. Those who hold any position beyond the background check are supporting the monster that may one day consume them, while alienating the people who use firearms safely and effectively. As one final note, it is interesting that, in this climate of “hate speech” meaning “disagreement”, social media could now potentially part of a background check.
All because people “Just wanted” “commonsense” gun laws.