I was greeted today with an article by the New York Times Editorial Board with that title, and this illustration.
“In an alarming victory for the gun lobby, Missouri’s Republican-controlled Legislature voted Wednesday to override Gov. Jay Nixon’s veto and enact a wholesale retreat from gun safety in the state.”
Hmmm…. “alarming victory…”, “…Republican-controlled…”, “…wholesale retreat…”, “…gun safety…”. Already I know this is not going to be anything close to a balanced piece of journalism. It’s another in an endless stream of paranoid anti-gun ideology rhetoric that is more representative of a religious cult than a rational argument.
Let’s unpack the Editorial Board’s assertions.
“The law will let citizens carry concealed weapons in public without a state gun permit, criminal background check or firearms training.”
No, anyone, anywhere can carry concealed weapons without permits, background checks (which are more than just criminal checks) or firearms training. Nearly all criminals, psychopaths, crazies and terrorists do not, in fact, seek or care about permits. Permits, background checks and training are for normal, law abiding citizens. They don’t stop the other people at all.
“It strips local law enforcement of its current authority to deny firearms to those guilty of domestic violence and to other high-risk individuals.”
Law enforcement has no authority to deny firearms to anyone. It may arrest those whom the legal system has adjudicated and prohibited from owning a firearm; it may confiscate firearms in those instances where those individuals are discovered to be violating those prohibitions, but it can’t deny anyone from carrying. Unless, of course we all submit to constant body scanners wherever we go.
And it establishes a dangerous “stand your ground” standard that will allow gun owners to shoot and claim self-defense based on their own sense of feeling threatened.”
“Stand your ground” isn’t dangerous except for the person who suffers the consequences of threatening another person with death or dangerous bodily injury. And, there are stringent legal standards that define when one is so threatened and permitted legally and ethically to respond with deadly force to stop that threat.
Basically, the Editorial Board objects to the citizens of Missouri, and I’m sure of anywhere else for that matter, being able to carry guns for self defense and the defense of their families and loved ones. Let’s suppose that all of the law abiding citizens in Missouri were forced to go through a long process in order to obtain a permit for concealed carry. Let’s further presume that criminals are under no such obligation. You know that your ex-boyfriend is a dangerous alcoholic who has a history of violence and has sworn to kill you for breaking up with him. You decide you need to carry a gun to protect yourself from this psycho who has no regard for the law and is about twice your size. You go to law enforcment to apply for a permit. Go take a class, you are told. It will only cost you $200, and then there will be the application and fingerprint fee once you’ve passed the class, and there will be a waiting period before the process is complete. Like three months.
Yes, we are sorry about your boyfriend and we can get a restraining order but it’s unlikely that a piece of paper will do much to keep him from kicking in your door, raping you and shooting you and your two kids. After all, dead people tell no tales, eh?
Really, this is some sick shit. The Editorial Board of the New York Times, none of whom live in dangerous places nor are in fear of their lives, wants you to remain unarmed while those who could care less about legal niceties are free to carry whatever firearm they can afford to buy or can steal.
The Editorial Board people also drag out the tired and false flags they always use to promote their cause: Michael Brown and Ferguson. Michael Brown was a petty thief and full time bully who, it was subsequently proven, tried to take a cop’s gun and got shot, for it, is hauled out to play the racist card. So is Trayvon Martin who was making videos of smoking dope and playing with guns and who eventually tried to beat Zimmerman to death before getting shot.
Of course as anyone knows who has actually bought a gun, there are already background checks in place. Even though the Times is forced to admit that background checks are done, there is, of course, a “but” involved: “Federal gun controls still require background checks on buyers, but only at federally licensed dealers. Unfortunately, there is a separate and busy uncontrolled market where buyers at gun shows and on the internet do not have to undergo background checks.”
No, this is not true. It is a lie. There is no “uncontrolled market” at gun shows or on the Internet in which background checks are not required. You can’t buy a gun from a FFL dealer without having a background check. Period. Sure, it’s possible to buy a gun without those checks, criminals do it all of the time. Just like it is possible to buy drugs without a permit, or practically anything else for that matter.
And, finally what may the most pathetic claim of all, the notion that firearms manufacturers should be legally responsible for how purchasers use their products. Sure. Just like the auto makers are legally responsible for the drunk drivers that kill and maim thousands every year. This is so illogical and unreasonable that it must come from people with the intellectual abilities of a six year old.
Digging a little deeper into this kind of ideology one can see that its supporters are so incensed that Missouri, and by extension, anyone else who happens to disagree with their anti-gun dogma, are so morally deficient that they want the Federal Government to step in and stop these misguided gun people from exercising their Constitutional freedoms. Because their opinions and dogma trump basic American freedom. This is victimhood in action. This is appeal to “higher authority” when you don’t get your way.
As I have said before, this is nothing new and is a direct outcome of the American Civil War. Although it is fashionable these days to attribute the Civil War to a war against slavery, it was at its root, a war to uphold, or suppress, depending on your point of view, the right of the people to decide how they chose to be governed, and whether the federal authorities can force legally constituted bodies, the states, to submit to the dictates of people who are not members of those bodies. To quote Pulitzer Prize-winning author James McPherson, “The Civil War started because of uncompromising differences between the free and slave states over the power of the national government to prohibit slavery in the territories that had not yet become states. When Abraham Lincoln won election in 1860 as the first Republican president on a platform pledging to keep slavery out of the territories, seven slave states in the deep South seceded and formed a new nation, the Confederate States of America. The incoming Lincoln administration and most of the Northern people refused to recognize the legitimacy of secession. They feared that it would discredit democracy and create a fatal precedent that would eventually fragment the no-longer United States into several small, squabbling countries.”
Pay special attention to that last sentence. I submit that today, democracy, if not discredited, is certainly endangered, and that the fragmentation long delayed by the Union military victory is beginning to show.
Let us say that you live in a dangerous place. Baltimore. Chicago. St. Louis. Houston. Los Angeles. Miami. New York City. Some certainly more dangerous than others, but still, statistically, much worse than the norm and certainly distressingly more dangerous than, say, Liberal, Kansas or Bozeman, Montana. Let’s say the Federal Government and the cities so named have decided that you no longer have the right to defend yourself effectively, that you can’t own a firearm in any of those places. Even worse, let’s say you need to travel to one of those places to be with your dangerously sick child, a city not known for it’s peaceful and loving nature. You can’t take or carry a firearm there. Why is this right? Why does this even make sense?
After the next President is elected and the regressive left crashes up against the alt-right, do you think it’s going to be safe to turn over your firearms to the government for “your own protection”?
This is a fractured, confusing and dangerous time and ninnies, like the New York Times Editorial Board, whomever they actually are, are only making things worse with their outright lies, twisting of fact, and appeals to paranoia and ideology.