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).
At least calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment respects the Constitutional process.
Unlike Obama who is going to subvert and undermine it with a thoroughly un-constitutional process.
“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 gunsâ€â€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.”
Sorry dude. People can express their desire to have gun control because the constitution gives you the right to whine. Just because you whine about it doesn’t mean we should do it.
By the way, it’s settled law. Deal with it you prepubescent putz.
What we need to end violence is a vocal ban on violence. They can stand on the street corner and recite their mantra “end violence ummm”. If that doesn’t work they can yell louder. If that still doesn’t work, they can move to another street corner and do it all over again.
And when she is being raped out of her mind by a thug with a gun and nobody is around with a gun to stop him, what then?? Lay back and enjoy it(Clayton Williams).
Come and take them honey!
Wouldn’t it be great if Trumps telling the unvarnished truth spurred leftists to start doing the same? That’s right, morons, pull off the mask.
Following CW-II, make sure folks like her go to the guillotine last.
When the blade is very dull.
I think she needs to be banned from reproducing.
Be careful when you grab my gun, Cupcake. The barrel’s going to be a bit hot.
Check out her picture up-thread ... I think you needn't worry.
Hey look. It’s Olive Oil!
She looks to be beyond her peak beauty years so she’s becoming more and more bitter, as liberal atheists tend to do.
Calm down snowflake, it'll be okay.
Poor thing needs some sunlight. I see a very unhappy young person there, in fact her facial features don’t suggest she smiles much. Wouldn’t be surprised if she’s a binge drinker (often alone). She’s not going to find joy in writing about ‘priviledge’, or her other liberal points of view. Hope she gets her life together.
No.
Your move.
When I first saw that pic, I thought that it was a man.
According to the article the author lives in Toronto. I suggest she stay there and mind her own business
I’ll make a note to save my ammo if I ever have the opportunity to save her from an attacker.
She lives in Toronto. If she’s a traitor, she’s Canada’s problem.
We should “ban” idiot liberal asshats.
If all of humankind were individually in separate rubber rooms, we’d be less safe than we are now (see physical health).
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.