The real narrative is not about children, and it isn’t new

In his latest endorsement of gun control measures, President Obama said  one thing that is absolutely true:

“I’ve been very clear that an assault-rifle ban, banning these high capacity clips, background checks, that there are a set of issues that I have historically supported and will continue to support,” the president said.

I see the above statement as an admission that the real narrative is not the purported one. This is not about dead children in Connecticut. The latter provide merely an opportunity for Obama to ramp up the rhetoric in the hope that he can now do what he has wanted to do all along.

After all, what has he to lose? Gun enthusiasts are hardly his friends. They never have been and they never will be. Not only do they not like him, but it is mutual. He showed his hand back in 2008 with his remarks about people who cling bitterly to their guns and bibles.

And now, thanks to the Connecticut shooting, he has decided that the time has come to pry their guns away from their clinging hands.

I have a question.

Might this be a deliberate plan to disarm political enemies?

It isn’t called that, of course. According to the language of the president’s narrative, it’s all about saving the children:

Obama said that he expected even firearm owners to understand the need for new regulations in the wake of the Connecticut shooting spree that killed 20 young children.

“I think there are a vast majority of responsible gun owners out there who recognize that we can’t have a situation in which somebody with severe psychological problems is able to get the kind of high-capacity weapons that this individual in Newtown obtained and gun down our kids,” Obama said.

The problem is that there is simply no way to prevent any determined individual — whether “someone with severe psychological problems” or not — from being able to get “high-capacity weapons.” No laws could possibly accomplish that, for the simple reason that those who are determined to do things like murder their own parents before opening fire on children and then killing themselves are about as far from being law-abiding as it is possible to be. Gun control supporters know this too, which is why they like to envision a world in which guns are not available. But they know that’s not going to happen either, so they will support whatever laws they can get even though they realize (and generally admit) that they will never deter a matricidal maniac .

What I think this comes down to is very simple and fills me with revulsion. They are saying to gun owners like me that because there are murderous maniacs out there who are capable of doing anything, we do not trust you. The implication is that all gun owners are either potential maniacs themselves, or else their guns might be stolen from them by maniacs — even if the maniacs had to kill them first. The logic is simple: because that demented kid in Connecticut had to murder his own mother to get her guns, that means no gun owners can ever be trusted.

Now, while I have to admit that it is theoretically possible that a murderous maniac could break into my house, kill me, steal my guns and then use them to kill people, just as that could theoretically happen to any gun owner anywhere, such a theoretical possibility no more justifies banning certain powerful guns than the possibility homicidal carjacking would justify banning powerful cars.

This “we don’t trust you” argument — grounded as it is in the “save the children” narrative — is not only extremely condescending, but it epitomizes the Orwellian nature of nanny statism. Any gun owners dumb enough to fall for it are admitting that they cannot be trusted.

I would say that people who fall for the narrative and think this is “for the children” are pathetic dupes who don’t deserve their freedom, but unfortunately, it’s not their freedom that’s being taken away.


Posted

in

by

Tags:

Comments

7 responses to “The real narrative is not about children, and it isn’t new”

  1. bobmark Avatar
    bobmark

    Historical usage and court opinions suggest that

    Citizen arms – individual operated, solid firing, home kept, sport and defense
    State arms – crew operated, shell firing, arsenal kept, defense and attack uses

    2nd amendment denotes the right of citizens to their arms without state interference

    This is not a complicated problem

  2. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    Bob,

    There is also the Miller decision which said that any military small arm is a valid civilian arm.

  3. Scott M Avatar
    Scott M

    Conservatives discuss facts Liberals use tactics. Liberals aren’t driven by facts, therefore ‘correcting the record’ does nothing to stop Liberals. If you value your rights it’s more effective to follow the tactics Liberals use to get their way. Show up in numbers and intimidate them. Flash-mobs and angry mobs on doorsteps do much more than logic against libs. Think Black Panthers and SEIU, not debating society. You don’t have to hurt people and break things, but you must make that seem like a real threat.

  4. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    Scott M,

    I’m doing that in the “there is no Drug Prohibition Amendment” case.

    Having some effect too.

  5. Kathy Kinsley Avatar
    Kathy Kinsley

    He’s just trying to boost the economy. Gun sales are going to go through the roof. /sarcasm off

  6. Daniel Taylor Avatar
    Daniel Taylor

    Um, actually conservatives “use tactics” and ignore facts just as much as liberals do.

    Either that, or there aren’t any conservatives out there and we are all just kidding ourselves.

  7. Kathy Kinsley Avatar
    Kathy Kinsley

    “but unfortunately, it’s not their freedom that’s being taken away.”

    Umm. Yes, it is. It’s just not a freedom they want (now), so it doesn’t matter to them. But it’s still their right (2nd Amendment, anyone?) – whether they want it or not.

    Though sometimes I suspect it’s not the right they don’t want – it’s the responsibility (which, unfortunately, the Constitution only implies) that scares them.

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ”

    That implies that those people who keep and bear arms have the responsibility to fight for the security of a “free State” if necessary. They don’t care enough to fight for anything. They want someone else to guarantee their security. Good luck to them…