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).
Right. Ban guns just like heroin, meth and cocaine are banned. How’s that working?
I wonder if she is willing to shoot us in order to ban guns...
She will grow old, angry and bitter and when she dies alone her cats will devour her mortal remains ....
newrepublic.com (PHOEBE MALTZ BOVY on 12-10-2015).
Were a total ban enacted, every gun store would be sold out within 24 hours (legal or not).
There are at least 60,000 dealers, each with a minimum average of 100 guns each.
That’s 6,000,000 guns.
Assuming each goes to one person, that’s equipping an army 3x larger than the current largest (China).
Overnight.
Feebie isn't going to be fighting in any war. She's going to send men with guns to do the dirty work, while she watches on television.
PHOEBE MALTZ BOVY
What would you expect someone with this name to say?
Some kids are cursed from birth.
It’s time to ban free speech and press.
As the old saying goes: the pen is mightier than the sword.
We’re in the middle of a war with radical Islam.
It’s time to do away with our media giving all kinds of aid and comfort to the enemy.
Should they be banned in Israel first?
Maybe it’s time to ban LIEberals, or desert people with their own philosophy and law...
I don’t think she understands what she’s asking for. She would like humans to not be violent with each other, to not steal each other’s property, and for those who hunt (perhaps even for their very survival) to lay their guns down.
Or maybe she does understand what she’s asking for and is suicidal. Good luck with that.
Dear Phoebe,
No.
Just no.
A narcissistic selfie-queen. Shocker.
Ah, the haughty “You should feel blessed that I tolerate you peasants” pose.
“Phoebe Maltz Bovy” sounds like someone who lives alone with a dozen cats.
Uh, gee.....I’d hit it, except for those spooky eyes.
Our sole dinner date would end with her storming out of the restaurant shrieking and in tears after I mentioned that I’m an NRA life member.
;^)
No, she probably feels that the Canadians need their guns to keep us out.
Ban murder and assault!!
Oh, wait...
The pen is mightier than the sword, so does she agree to a ban on her writing?
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.