Thursday, December 29, 2011
- The New Anti-Gun Bogeyman!
The New York Times has published another editorial against the principle of private citizens being allowed to own firearms, even with considerable federal regulation in place. I know... you're saying "Of course not! The NYTimes thinks Americans are too stupid to run their own lives, so what would you expect?"
I agree - this editorial is old news in many ways, and it drags out all the old distortions for the purpose of convincing the few upper west siders who still know no better, that their position is right. They dredge up the (totally fictitious and invented from whole cloth) gun show loophole, the Brady campaigns distorted statistics, and they represent the microscopic but vocal minority that still ignores enough of the data to agree with them as a movement which represents the majority.
This is actually good news for gun owners. The few anti-gun lobbyists who are still out there don't just represent a movement on the cutting edge of the 1970's, but a movement that is so far beyond the mainstream that they can't even manage new verbal bogeymen. Well that's not right exactly... they try. But their recent efforts are laughable, and it indicates a movement that is all but dying out.
Their new 'catch phrase' designed to light a fire under public opinion and terrify America into bold new legislative action is the anti-gun lobbyists new 33-round 'assault clip'. You and I know that they mean "high capacity magazines", but anti-gun people don't know much about guns so please don't fault them for trying to regulate something out of existence without any real understanding of it.
The image above shows an actual 'high capacity magazine', which under NJ law, is any magazine which holds more than 15 rounds. As you can see, it's much MUCH more dangerous than the one beside it. What's that? you can't tell which one is the high capacity magazine? Precisely.
If they didn't represent the most direct and transparent threat to the liberty of individual Americans, I'd feel bad for the anti-gun movement. Theirs is a movement which is withering on the vine. There is too much actual data out there now for Americans to be further persuaded by their distortions. (Except maybe for the few thousand people who still take the Times editorial page seriously).
They've responded to this like any liberal child - they've become more shrill and ridiculous, and they sound that way to everyone but themselves. Like any responsible parent, we should refuse to give in to their demands and just wait for them to calm down before getting on with our lives.
Americans are already onto the Brady Campaign. We already know that they don't want to prevent gun violence, they only want to prevent gun ownership. And in the end the only people they can prevent from gun ownership are those people who will obey gun laws - law abiding citizens. Criminals won't care about their stupid laws, and will actually prefer a disarmed populace to prey upon.
So if banning guns means more actual gun violence (like all the scientific data indicates), the Brady campaign still says "So be it". Americans know this, and are bored with listening to them. Based on the tone of this editorial, it sound like they know it too.