Media Criticism, Philosophy, Political Commentary, Social Commentary

On Gun Control

5 Comments

How I learned to stop worrying and love the AR-15:

Brutally put, it makes little philosophical sense for the elected representatives of a government that is subordinate to the people to be able to disarm those people. As an enlightened state may by no means act as the arbiter of its critics’ words, it may not remove from the people the basic rights that are recognized in the very document to which it owes its existence. “Shall not be infringed” and “shall make no law” are clear enough even for the postmodern age. To ask, “Why do you need an AR-15?” is to invert the relationship. A better question: “Why don’t you want me to have one?” And far from being the preserve of two-bit reactionaries, this, I discovered to my consternation, is a deeply — nay, radically — liberal principle, and one of the most beautiful ideas in the history of beautiful ideas. It changed my politics forever.

It is not, and has never been, about hunting.

[Update a few minutes later]

And then there’s this:

These ideas had a profound effect on me, ushering in the startling realization that, far from merely being a larger England, the United States had become something quite different: an incubator of lost or diluted British freedoms. As the Liberty Bell was originally cast in England but rang out in America, so those guarantees of the “rights, liberties, and immunities of free and natural-born subjects” have found their truest expression across the Atlantic. “That rifle on the wall of the labourer’s cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy,” wrote George Orwell in 1941. “It is our job to see that it stays there.” In Britain and beyond, that rifle has long been taken away. England’s bell has fallen silent. Americans would do well to ensure that the crack in theirs grows no larger.

Yes.

5 thoughts on “On Gun Control”

    1. “It is not, and has never been, about hunting.”

      Actually, it was, partially. In England, as in most of Europe, hunting was a prerogative of royalty. The deer — all of them — were “the King’s deer” and could not be hunted without a license from the King. (Recall why Robin Hood was outlawed.)

      Needless to say, such licenses were granted only to nobles and aristocrats in the King’s favor, never to commoners who merely wanted to feed their families. Only gentlemen and nobles were allowed to bear arms, both to prevent revolt and to prevent poaching.

      This was one of the primary attractions of the New World. Not only was farmland free for anyone who was willing to work it, game was free for anyone willing to hunt it. America offered something new in the world: an aristocracy of merit and hard work, rather than accident of birth. Every free man was the equivalent of a European gentleman, with the right to bear arms, whether in defense of his home, to provide sustenance, or for mere sport. The wording of the Second Amendment may emphasize its military purpose, but the Founding Fathers surely recognized that it’s economic and social significance as well.

  3. Obama is gearing up for lots of executive orders regarding gun control.

    Obamacare was not a plus for him….

    Bergdahl was not a plus for him…..

    Causing hundreds of thousands of ilegals to flood the border recently and shipping them off to Az and Tx was not a plus for him (see Virginia GOP Primary).

    Screwing around with gun control by executive order will be a net minus for him too.

  4. “Causing hundreds of thousands of ilegals to flood the border recently and shipping them off to Az and Tx was not a plus for him (see Virginia GOP Primary).”

    I wonder if Obama is deliberately shipping illegals to red states but not even a congressional investigation would get the raw data from the administration.

Comments are closed.