 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In a recent online story by Los Angeles Times writer Eric Lichtblau, I came across an amazing paragraph, one that (unintentionally) encapsulates all that is wrong with "gun" control (aka, people control, anti-self-defense laws, or victim disarmament laws). It seems that the Bush Justice Department and Attorney-General John Ashcroft have verbally shifted from the out-right statist positions of Clinton, Bush the Elder, and other proponents of eventual gun confiscation.
Of course, what Ashcroft et al. have suggested as "improvements" that have all the gun control fanatics in a tizzy are truly meek or downright harmful: keeping "instant check" records for a day rather than destroying them instantly; stating that the Second Amendment protects an individual right rather than the right of militias to have guns...but assuring everyone that such a position will in no way prevent the feds from enforcing all current victim disarmament laws; backing the continued prohibition against extended magazines and clips and so-called "assault rifles," i.e., semi-automatic rifles that are military look-a-likes and therefore "evil" because they have a bayonet lug (must stop all those murders-by-bayonet that flood the news), a flash suppressor (for all those night-fighters police must battle), or separate, grip handles (??? you've got me on that one...); refusing to go along with the United Nations' desire to mark all guns so they can be tracked...while retaining such lovely practices as serial numbers on guns and paper trails so the feds can track down gun owners; ending federal gun buy backs near public housing projects...but supporting mandatory gun locks and restrictions on gun shows.
Well. You get the idea.
Of course, the sterling patriots in such weasel organizations as the "Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence" (the cowards who changed the name of their organization from Handgun Control, Inc.), the Violence Policy Center, and Americans for Gun Safety are suffering chest pains. They gasp that Bush and Ashcroft are "pawns" of the National Rifle Association; are "flat-Earthers"; are "foxes guarding the hen house"; or are pushers of "junk science."
The paragraph that arrested my attention, though, summarized what these and other anti-gun groups fear may happen if this "burning of Rome" is not extinguished immediately:
"Broadening the...2nd Amendment"? "...on par with freedom of...speech"? "...threaten...gun laws"?
Would that it were so!
The clear implication of these criticisms by the gun control crowd, of course, is that such outcomes would be horrific, devastating, and would undermine civilization itself.
Those results would be horrid and nasty...to the troglodytes seeking to turn us all into helpless supplicants to criminals, law enforcement officers, and soldiers. (Somehow, loathsome, malignant, and subversive guns lose their power to transform humans into mindless devils when wielded by anyone employed by the government). For the rest of us, however, to treat the Second Amendment with the same respect given the First Amendment would be a wondrous transformation.
(Hmm. Maybe I should say: the way the First Amendment used to be treated. Given the appalling numbers of Americans ready to destroy freedom of the press and speech in order to suppress "insulting" and "insensitive" language, the present weakened state of the First Amendment is not one to be emulated. Censorship is a long way from its deathbed.)
If Bush and his crew of half-hearted "conservatives" were actually guilty of seeking to implement what the anti-gun people claim they are, I would be singing hosannas in the street.
Imagine a world where your right to defend yourself matched your right to read, write, or say whatever you wanted. Imagine if you could treat weapons (guns, knives, swords, garrotes, nunchucks, stun guns, mace, rockets, whatever) as you do items protected by the First Amendment:
You can buy books, magazines, newspapers, or music CD's without having your name checked against a list of felons. No "instant check" is compiled into a database containing information on who you are and which particular books you buy.
You can buy media products without having a license or needing permission to do so.
You can carry media products anywhere without having to obtain yet another special license or permit, without having to take a class, and without having to pass a competency test.
You can have media products in any size or configuration you like. No minimum dimensions, no restrictions on special features like holographic covers, no demands that a book be well-constructed.
You can purchase as many media products as you like; no "one-a-month" limits.
You can make and sell any media products without being subjected to licenses, fees, inspections, prohibitions, or audits by a special bureau that singles out your products from the millions manufactured and sold in this country.
You can move your media products to any state, county, or city in the country without fearing some arm of the State will outlaw and confiscate your property and then throw you in jail.
You can let your children use your media products without a minimum age limit; without having to write out a special permission slip; without locking them up; and without tearing out the pages from your books and storing them separately from the covers.
You can take you media products aboard planes and trains, on your bicycle, or any other vehicle without having to check them with your baggage after alerting the airlines to their presence or without locking them in the trunk of your car.
You can give your media products to your children as gifts or pass them along to others after you die without breaking any laws.
You can trade your media products with others at garage sales or flea markets without becoming subject to government review.
You can have media products that do not have serial numbers that "aid" the police if your property is stolen.
Yes! If only we could do with our weapons all the things we can (still) do with the items and actions protected by the First Amendment, we would be well on our way to a sea change in social progress. Such giant steps to restoring the actual meaning of the Second Amendment would rock the world. Bush and Ashcroft would be remembered in history and hailed as worthy successors of the Founding Fathers.
If, if...
The sad kicker in this story is another line Lichtblau wrote:
"Just what effect Ashcroft's declaration will have on actual policy and case law is unclear."
Ah, yes. Talk is cheap. For how many eons have we witnessed "conservatives" who proclaimed their undying loyalty and commitment to "freedom, capitalism, and justice"? And how far have we slipped from those ideals and deeper into slavery as conservative after conservative betrayed those very concepts in feeble attempts to cling to political power, selling out anything and everyone who dares to thwart their statist designs?
I sincerely and deeply hope that the direst and darkest fears of the anti-gun leagues are realized and implemented: that all unconstitutional gun laws are repealed. Yes, our right to express intellectual ideas as protected by the First Amendment is crucial to a free culture. That first mentioned right doesn't mean squat, however, if you don't have the muscle to defend it against violators.
That's the role of the Second Amendment: to guarantee a right that is second to none.
