Posted on 12/10/2015 1:51:48 PM PST by servo1969
Ban guns. All guns. Get rid of guns in homes, and on the streets, and, as much as possible, on police. Not just because of San Bernardino, or whichever mass shooting may pop up next, but also not not because of those. Don't sort the population into those who might do something evil or foolish or self-destructive with a gun and those who surely will not. As if this could be known—as if it could be assessed without massively violating civil liberties and stigmatizing the mentally ill. Ban guns! Not just gun violence. Not just certain guns. Not just already-technically-illegal guns. All of them.
I used to refer to my position on this issue as being in favor of gun control. Which is true, except that "gun control" at its most radical still tends to refer to bans on certain weapons and closing loopholes. The recent New York Times front-page editorial, as much as it infuriated some, was still too tentative. "Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership," the paper argued, making the case for "reasonable regulation," nothing more. Even the rare ban-guns arguments involve prefacing and hedging and disclaimers. "We shouldn't ‘take them away' from people who currently own them, necessarily," writes Hollis Phelps in Salon. Oh, but we should.
I say this not to win some sort of ideological purity contest, but because banning guns urgently needs to become a rhetorical and conceptual possibility. The national conversation needs to shift from one extreme - an acceptance, ranging from complacent to enthusiastic, of an individual right to own guns—to another, which requires people who are not politicians to speak their minds. And this will only happen if the Americans who are quietly convinced that guns are terrible speak out.
Their wariness, as far as I can tell, comes from two issues: a readiness to accept the Second Amendment as a refutation, and a reluctance to impose "elite" culture on parts of the country where guns are popular. (There are other reasons as well, not least a fear of getting shot.) And there's the extent to which it's just so ingrained that banning guns is impossible, legislatively and pragmatically, which dramatically weakens the anti-gun position.
The first issue shouldn't be so complicated. It doesn't take specialized expertise in constitutional law to understand that current U.S. gun law gets its parameters from Supreme Court interpretations of the Second Amendment. But it's right there in the First Amendment that we don't have to simply nod along with what follows. That the Second Amendment has been liberally interpreted doesn't prevent any of us from saying it's been misinterpreted, or that it should be repealed.
When you find yourself assuming that everyone who has a more nuanced (or just pro-gun) argument is simply better read on the topic, remember that opponents of abortion aren't wondering whether they should have a more nuanced view of abortion because of Roe v. Wade. They're not keeping their opinions to themselves until they've got a term paper's worth of material proving that they've studied the relevant case law.
Then there is the privilege argument. If you grew up somewhere in America where gun culture wasn't a thing (as is my situation; I'm an American living in Canada), or even just in a family that would have never considered gun ownership, you'll probably be accused of looking down your nose at gun culture. As if gun ownership were simply a cultural tradition to be respected, and not, you know, about owning guns. Guns… I mean, must it really be spelled out what's different? It's absurd to reduce an anti-gun position to a snooty aesthetic preference.
There's also a more progressive version of this argument, and a more contrarian one, which involves suggesting that an anti-gun position is racist, because crackdowns on guns are criminal-justice interventions. Progressives who might have been able to brush off accusations of anti-rural-white classism may have a tougher time confronting arguments about the disparate impact gun control policies can have on marginalized communities.
These, however, are criticisms of certain tentative, insufficient gun control measures—the ones that would leave small-town white families with legally-acquired guns well enough alone, allowing them to shoot themselves or one another and to let their guns enter the general population.
Ban Guns, meanwhile, is not discriminatory in this way. It's not about dividing society into "good" and "bad" gun owners. It's about placing gun ownership itself in the "bad" category. It's worth adding that the anti-gun position is ultimately about police not carrying guns, either. That could never happen, right? Well, certainly not if we keep on insisting on its impossibility.
Ask yourself this: Is the pro-gun side concerned with how it comes across? More to the point: Does the fact that someone opposes gun control demonstrate that they're culturally sensitive to the concerns of small-town whites, as well as deeply committed to fighting police brutality against blacks nationwide? I'm going to go with no and no on these. (The NRA exists!)
On the pro-gun-control side of things, there's far too much timidity. What's needed to stop all gun violence is a vocal ban guns contingent. Getting bogged down in discussions of what's feasible is keeps what needs to happen—no more guns—from entering the realm of possibility. Public opinion needs to shift. The no-guns stance needs to be an identifiable place on the spectrum, embraced unapologetically, if it's to be reckoned with.
Phoebe Maltz Bovy is a writer living in Toronto. She is writing a book with St. Martin's Press about the idea of privilege (2017).
The only reason I "might do something evil or foolish or self-destructive with a gun" is if you try to violate my Second Amendment rights.
That “dingbat” has a creepy smile.
This is exactly the message we need to hear from the left, so gun owning Democrats can get a good look at who is leading their party. ...I have a friend who has gone over to the dark side from the days when we both ignored politics, and she was on the assault weapons ban narrative. I convinced her she should go after all guns.
see the tagline? She already live in Canada.
Connecticut Governor To Sign Executive Order Banning Gun Sales To Americans On “Watchlists” - Live Feed
She should have seen my many kids marveling over the performance of the 30-06 while deer hunting this year. The future belongs to those who show up. My kids will show up with many guns.
“I have been in touch with the White House directly on this matter and we are working with federal authorities to gain access to their lists for this purpose,” Malloy said.”
Phoebe Maltz Bovy is a writer living in Toronto. She is writing a book with St. Martin’s Press about the idea of privilege (2017).
Sounds legit.
To think that some people regard cats as picky eaters.
Phoebe, when you OUTLAW guns; only OUTLAWS will have guns.
We live on a large tract of land, on a river. There are
rattlesnakes, copperheads, water moccasins, bobcats,
coyotes, occasional bears & mountain lions ranging through.
Husband has shot well over 30 poisonous snakes since we’ve
been out here. One very daring copperhead actually
slithered up the back porch to get to the dog’s food dish.
Rattlers give some warning; but copperheads & moccasins do
not. - We do not live in Utopia, Phoebe. Thank God!
Whew! At least there’s very little chance she’ll be fruitful and multiply. Even Laz may hesitate with this one.
And if not for the Second Amendment and the NRA, they’d have done it, too.
ANYONE who owns a firearm and/or believes in the Second Amendment should long since have joined the NRA.
If this stupid woman thinks she's entitled to discuss my Second Amendment rights, I ask: Is she willing to give up her First Amendment rights?
Because the minute you start talking about what someone else 'should' be allowed to have or do, you've made the case for the Second Amendment.
Chew on that Phoebe.
Does she think her First Amendment right was decided over coffee and crumpets?
Or the uk or australia.
Or when the russians turned them in when the commies took over in 1917.
Big talk, bitch. Come and take mine.
Phoebe Maltz Bovy—sounds like a bacteria.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
