GUN CONTROLThe U.S. Left, its media and school teachers are prostituting the recent Florida psychotic’s attack on a school in hope of arousing a successful lynching of American gun ownership. The wish is to substitute emotion for thought by blaming the chosen tool instead of its psychotic user. It seems an appropriate time to think, given what is at stake.

A gun’s primary purpose is o punch a hole in people or other mammals from a safe distance. All other uses are secondary and politically irrelevant. Thoughtful people fear possessors of guns, a tool that empowers such possessors to either impose their will or resist the will of another.

A government is a group of people formed to impose its collective will and to prevent significant resistance to such will. Governments therefore see gun possession as appropriate only for governments, just as governments once thought similarly of swords.

America’s founders had to strip King George III of sovereignty, conferring it upon the citizens in order to legalize their revolt against England. That was documented in the Declaration of Independence. Their Constitution went on to document the limits of government power. At that point, it seems to have dawned upon them that even limited government would have guns and inevitably impose its will unless the citizens were somehow empowered to resist that. The second amendment to the Bill of Rights was the result. The founders wanted the government to fear the people, not leave it de facto the other way. The founders view of human government saw individual liberty as inevitably threatened by government power, even with imposed limits.

The founders knew that an armed populace carries a cost. But they saw that cost as worthy of payment if it maintained personal liberty. Whether that view still prevails is today’s question, but it is being presented dishonestly to the public

Mass shootings by psychotics are a result of deinstitutionalizing them, not a result of gun ownership by citizens. Other psychotics have run through crowds with machetes, clubs and cars; are we to limit car ownership? The incidence of such shootings has also risen with societal changes of the perceived value of human life and the massive attention provided by the media. These too are unaffected by gun ownership. It seems probable that the unwillingness of the political Left to focus on the perpetrators and their insistence upon focusing upon their tools instead is an indication that their stated motives are specious; that their true intention is to disarm the citizens for the benefit of their Government.   Of corse, that is only an opinion.

However, it is too visible fact that governmental forbidding of recreational drugs has not deprived the populace of them; they are available on middle school campuses. How then, would governmental deprivation of gun ownership fare any better? The price: a malleable citizenry, would have been paid; the goal, a safe one, would not. It appears that the Left’s desired gun control would benefit the government at the expense of the citizens without delivering the promised benefit. Not, we note, unusual in political situations. Reality indeed, sucks.

About Jack Curtis

Suspicious of government, doubtful of economics, fond of figure skating (but the off-ice part, not so much) Couple of degrees in government, a few medals in figure skating; just reading and suspicion for economics ...
This entry was posted in Economics, Goverrnment, Politics, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s