When I agreed to write this blog, I thought I had something new to say. Over the last year or so I’ve written thousands of words and hundreds of Facebook posts about the “gun control” debate, and at the end of it all, the Newtown tragedy, along with other, smaller, just as tragic episodes, seems to have negated all my hard work. The Smiling Jackals in Washington are bound and determined to do something about “gun violence.” It doesn’t matter what I or ten thousand other bloggers say, it’s likely that by this time next month, something will have been done, and it will be the most intrusive, most all-encompassing, most permanently debilitating assault on the Constitution since Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and declared martial law in DC during the American Civil War. The forces arrayed against American gun owners have had this dream of a disarmed population in their minds for a very long time, and as usual it’s taken an unfortunate incident to give them both the incentive and the excuse to pull out the plans and try to put them into effect. Yes, they’re using the bodies of dead children to further a political agenda, but what else is new? Politicians in general will use any excuse to do anything they want, no matter how horrible the precipitating event, in order to get what they want. And they’ll never apologize for doing so, since the political character of Washington is such that having beliefs, having scruples, having core values are political liabilities. Politicians operate on the principle of political expediency, with a large dose of narcissism thrown in for good measure. “What is good for me, and how can I use events to further my own agenda and gain some advantage?” During the healthcare debate, Democrats and liberals (not to overgeneralize or anything) accused Republicans and conservatives of “playing politics” with healthcare. Excuse me, but making this accusation is a blatant case of hypocrisy. They misdirect the debate by making accusations, thus putting the other side on the defensive. Republicans do it as well, so they are certainly not blameless, but in this case, ostensibly about the “gun control debate,” the debate is mostly drawn along party lines. Not completely, but you get the drift: if Democrats want it, Republicans find a problem with it, whatever “it” is. (I think they learned this tactic from watching Bill Clinton define “sex.”) So the debate goes around and around, with one camp talking about the unconstitutionality of the proposed bans on so-called “assault weapons,” while the other reminds us that those poor children wouldn’t have died if we’d had the courage to “do something.”
What angers and disappoints me is that with all the arguing back and forth, neither side really seems to be offering facts. I’ve seen numerous bloggers try to educate the ignorant on the facts, but nobody but other bloggers and Facebook denizens seem to notice, or for that matter, even care. In a world of narcissists and hypocrites, facts mean nothing; all that really is important is the image of tiny little children being gunned down in their classrooms by a crazed man with a dangerous looking gun. And in repeating this refrain, mentioning the poor children with every other breath, the people who gave these politicians their jobs completely forget about facts as well; we must do something, or this tragedy will happen again. Forget for a moment that by penalizing 330 million other people, you’ll be doing very little to stop other madmen; when proven wrong, when confronted by another such massacre, whether with guns, knives, or gasoline bombs, the politicians will look back with pride and tell us all, at least we tried. Or better yet, they’ll find some other inanimate object or personal behavior to criminalize, and the process will begin again, with speeches and Youtube videos, with talk shows and sound bites and press conferences, but nobody will remember to reinstate the rights already taken away. And the effect on crime and criminals will be minimal at best, though some will claim a great victory, just as they will claim victory when they get all those evil guns out of the hands of people who mean no harm to anyone, while truly evil people will be licking their lips, salivating in anticipation, waiting for more helpless targets to terrorize.
FACT: Once the government has made something illegal or instituted a ban, it’s very rare that the law is undone; when it does happen, as in the repeal of Prohibition after a dozen very turbulent years, it’s a hard won fight. Unfortunately, by the time we start thinking about the rights we’ve lost, there aren’t many people left who remember them. Yes, it takes that long. Prohibition was such a colossal failure that anyone could see it was a doomed experiment, yet it still took over a decade to get it off the books.
FACT: Your child is safer in that classroom than in your home. More children will die this month from house fires, drownings and neglect or abuse at the hands of their own parents than died in Newtown; children will die in traffic accidents, and they’ll die of disease. And the same will happen next month, and the next, and the numbers will seldom decrease. That’s every single month, another Newtown tragedy played out one child at a time. But nobody seems to be doing anything for those children. Nobody used a gun, after all–guns and shootings, you see, are newsworthy.
You might have noticed that I haven’t brought up the term arrogance just yet, so here goes. What we are seeing is the logical conclusion of a ruling class convinced of its own infallibility and its own importance. These are people who, while perhaps not the ideological successors to Hitler, are affected by the same belief in self that fed his ego as he set the world on fire. They believe they know better than I what is good for me; and while they know what’s best for me, they have to be thinking concurrently that in doing what’s best for me, they’re doing what’s best for themselves. I repeat: that level of arrogance becomes narcissism. From Psychology Today:
“Narcissists cut a wide, swashbuckling figure through the world. At one end of the self-loving spectrum is the charismatic leader with an excess of charm, whose only vice may be his or her inflated amour-propre. At the far end of the spectrum reside individuals with narcissistic personality disorder, whose grandiosity soars to such heights that they are manipulative and easily angered, especially when they don’t receive the attention they consider their birthright.”
My only quibble with this definition is that I think the leader in this case is the one with NPD, and the others are just his minions. They were there, they had the same views, they possessed the same arrogance and narcissism, but now they have a single godhead around which they can rally; he sends out his edicts to his subjects, and they do his bidding, while he knows full well that should they fail, he is insulated against most criticism of his actions because of their self-destruction.
One of the things I’ve written about at length in the last couple of months is the level of ignorance the gun control fanatics exhibit about firearms. The fact is that few (if any) of them really have a clue what they’d be banning, or why. There are some cosmetic features of those “assault weapons” which will lead to individual firearms being banned, and even the Ultimate San Francisco Suffragette, Miz Dianne Feinstein, has used terms in her rants which make me believe she’s as much worried about how firearms look as what they are (or are not) capable of doing. Someone knows, and it’s my firm belief that by making a new proposed ban an enhanced version of the 1994-2004 ban, they are going after cosmetic features in order to cast as wide a net as possible, getting as many guns out of private hands as possible in one catch. The truth is, I doubt they even care about any of those inconvenient facts we’ve been trying to get them to face, but then, I’ve said that before, haven’t I?