We're giving away our civil rights

[Mr VJP]

Editor's Notebook: Giving Away Civil Rights

A few weeks back, the news reported that a young man with previous felony convictions was at an all-night drug store in Florida - in the parking lot, more precisely. As the story goes, he asked a stranger if he was interested in buying a gun. The stranger was interested and, as our hero was "producing" the gun, it "accidentally fired." The stranger was shot in the thigh, his femur shattered.

The midnight salesman had five prior arrests for Burglary, Aggravated Battery and Domestic Violence. As this was after midnight on a public access parking lot - a strange place for such a transaction - we have a case of violation of the "stupid rules" - going (or remaining at) stupid places, with stupid people and doing stupid things.

But no. A response to this from a commenter was this: people who are too stupid to own guns will cause the Natural Rights of Man to be overturned - even if to do so requires a dictatorial and illegitimate regime.

The argument was that something needs to be done about the irresponsible - perhaps mandatory training, like Switzerland.

My response -- Really? Just as soon as we do something with people too stupid to drive (many licensed drivers) and people too stupid to hold public office, we can address that.

No, I was told. "They" are focused on guns. "They" are not discussing the huge death and injury rates due to misuse of motor vehicles. "They" are looking at the right to own a gun. It's our duty to find a way to stop giving them reasons to take them. You know, they might get mad at us. How are you going to fight this?

I shouldn't have to say this to someone who's "on our side," but let's break it down. (1) The offender is a prohibited possessor by federal (and doubtless state) statute. He's already a criminal law violator. Hitting his "lack of training" is of dubious import. That he broke the "felon in possession" statue leads me to believe he's not going to be a good student at gun safety class - which, if he were to handle a firearm during the class, he'd be looking at mandatory federal prison time.

(2) "They are looking at the right to own a gun." Who is "they" and who gave them the right violate Natural Law? Besides, "they" are looking at disarming you. Feeding them another legislative and bureaucratic victory only serves to make them hungrier. Do you remember the 1934 NFA, the 1968 GCA, 1986 FOPA gun ban, Brady, 1994 Clinton gun ban, NICS and now the "Kagan 4473" law? It's like the "National CCW Reciprocity" attempt, simply a way to get "regulators over rights."

"They" are incrementalists. Feeding them yet another increment emboldens them.

(3) I realize they're not interested in cutting down major accidental death stats -- motor vehicles -- because that doesn't fit the agenda.

(4) As to fighting the war when they come for them, I've been fighting them since 1968. You want something pre-emptive? Support organizations that sue governments for their prohibitionist nonsense. Support pro-rights legislation in your state. Vote out gun-grabbers. The "leaders of the country" do care -- they're elitists who think we're too stupid to stop them.

Being useful to the enemy is something that really irks me.

I'd like to tell you I just set up the straw man, an argument intentionally designed to be easily destroyed - but this really happened, courtesy of one of the good guys. There are people on our side who really believe that nonsense.

It's time we all learned.

"We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately." (Attributed to Benjamin Franklin)

-- Rich Grassi