Statist Review: The Assault Rifle Debacle

There has been a great deal of controversial , poorly explained executive language and possible legal changes in the aftermath of the grisly Newtown shootings. Polticos on both sides of the fence have gone on the attack, most callously with the liberals trotting out the gravely wounded Senator Giffords to give halting words about the need for ‘gun control’.

We hear nothing but talk about ‘assault weapons’ and ‘extended clips’, cries of stricter penalties, better background checks, blah blah blah. Clearly, anyone who is in his or her right mind would review these incidents and see that the common denominator is simple:

The arguments and controls being put forward are clearly frameworks. That is, no one is calling for the banning of ‘all guns’, just guns that fit certain performance outlines.  Saiga conversions , storm carbines, semi-military style weapons most familar to veterans, and the like. Increased background checks and limits on accessories. In sharp contrast to previous years, there are now entire PAC’s working on state and local levels to enact gun control laws rather than trying to force Supreme Court decisions.

I have a theory that, while certainly paranoid, fits the existing facts.

These acts are being engineered, delberately, to either produce a backlash against gun control, or a backlash against gun culture, gunshows, and professional style weapons.

Most liberals aren’t violent individuals, that I know. I doubt a group of liberals is going around inciting people to these sorts of things. But they have carefully created a setting — the so-called ‘gun free zones’, entire states where gun usage is restricted heavily — where anyone with any kind of weapon can literally commit such massacres at will. If a group of hard-core extremists really wanted to cripple gun rights, a few more of these kind of massacres are all you need. The first time such weapons are sourced from gun shows or other related events, the outcry will be enourmous. People — especially timid, frightened people who’ve never had to fight for their damned lives and whose idea of danger is a malfunctioning Keurig coffeemaker — will reflexively listen to anyone who promises to make their children safe, without moving beyond an emotional though to the larger consequences. You spread enough of this garbage thinking on a local level and the second amendment won’t matter — there will be so many taxes, barriers, and negative PR that gun manufactors will begin to lose money.

Of course, there’s the flip side. Everytime we have a massacre or shooting, there’s a run on the gun stores. (Seriously, people, stock up when things die down…you should already have some class 3 body armor and a few thousand rounds for every gun you own, buying in the middle of the hysteria just wastes your money). The argument could also be made that that events like this will bring liberals with more words than sense crawling out of the woodwork to say their piece, like Michael Moore and Piers Morgan. It will drive people to knee-jerk reactions that, like crying for more gun control in a gun-free zone in a state that is already anti-gun, make zero sense. If pushed far enough with poor rhetoric, the anti-gun groups will sponsor and push legislation that has zero chance of passing, wasting resources and re-opening the very debate about if gun control is even worth pursuing at all, rather than attempting to remedy cultural and societal ills that cause these rampages.

I just find it odd that political storms like this burst ouf of nowhere every time the government is struggling with other issues (Benghazi, the Iran situations, the collapse of austerity in Europe and backpeddling by the IMF, et al).


Logical Premise

Senior Research Analyst at Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas
Former Lead Ops Analyst for HMS
Former Lead Statistical Analyst, BNSF
Former Internal Revenue Officer, IRS

Latest posts by Logical Premise (see all)

Comments

  1. says

    I agree with your “paranoid” theory to a point. It is possible that the tragic events are being engineered. Unfortunately, I have no problem believing the State would allow even the killing of innocents in order to further an agenda. History is replete with examples.

    Consider the attempted terrorist attacks that have been “foiled” by the State since 9/11. In all but two instances individuals with anti-American leanings were contacted by State agents, led to believe they had been recruited by Al Qaeda or some larger group, involved in a fake terrorist plot with State agents after receiving promises of weapons or bombs, and then arrested and paraded before the public as proof that the surrender of our civil liberties to the State is the only way we can remain safe in the face of such terror. These were merely entrapments by the State of people with anti-American leanings and a low level of intelligence. In the two incidences that actual terrorist actions were attempted (the shoe bomber and the car bomb in New York) the plots were foiled by ordinary citizens noticing something odd and taking action.

    I don’t feel that a backlash is the intent, but rather a mobilization of those already on the gun control side. There is almost no one on the fence concerning gun control or the second amendment. Fast and Furious could have been another such “engineering,” but since it was exposed and those involved at the highest levels are protected from prosecution (or even giving testimony), we’ll never know with certainty. A mobilization of anti-gun sentiment in order to fast-track some legislation before the public has a chance to calm down and process what has happened is the more likely intent, if the Newton shootings were “engineered.” If not, the reaction could be as benign as a politician wanting to appear to his constituency as “doing something” about it, or as malevolent as what James Madison referred to as “the old trick of turning every contingency into a resource for accumulating force in the government.” Rahm Emanuel restates it in less flowery and more ambiguous language: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” This seems to be a basic tenet of the State through the centuries.

  2. Republicae says

    Hey Logical…..in reference to our other conversation, you definitely don’t sound Statist in this commentary.

    • LogicalPremise says

      My friend, statism has very little in the way of stances. As I’ve said repeatedly, my view on gun control is simple: The Constitution states the civilians may own guns. Register them to the high heavens and make stupidly heavy penalties for gun crimes. But no real statist should ever support ineffectual laws , as any law that does not work inspires the common man to disrespect and eventually resent the state.

  3. Steve Storck says

    I agree with Republicae that this stance is not statist. I admit that I was intrigued by the title of your article, and that is why I came to read it. I figured that there would be a slew of unreasonable and propaganda-laden, emotion-driven sentiments here. I was pleasantly surprised to see a well-thought out and open-minded article. It is, surprisingly, a lantern of hope among the murky and depressing fog of popular thought (at least outside of libertarian/individualist circles).

    • LogicalPremise says

      Too many statists have forgotten that statism is NOT communism, socialism, or any other ism that puts anything in front of the survival of the state.

      Also, too many statists are full of ideas that not only don’t work but never worked.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *