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).Tweet
Former Lead Statistical Analyst, BNSF
Former Internal Revenue Officer, IRS
Latest posts by Logical Premise (see all)
- Obamacare and Insurance: a primer on why it's stupid, part two - October 15, 2013
- Obamacare and Insurance : A primer on why it's stupid , Part One - October 11, 2013
- The Death of Government - October 7, 2013