The leaders of the collective are not calling for a gun ban because they have concluded it will reduce the number of killings in this country–they don’t start from scratch like that.  They are doing it because their religion is Faith in Government. They believe without question that government can cure all the ills in the world, including insanity, and that it will if it is controlled by the “right” people.  The logical implication of this belief is at odds with democracy, though, because true believers can’t risk letting the power fall into the wrong hands.  (This is not theoretical, either.  Remember during the Obamacare debate, Bill Maher, a high priest of the faith, implored Congress to forget the democratically established rules for a supermajority and just vote up or down; and Michael Moore, another high ranking church member, urged Obama to “show some guts,” storm the S&P offices and arrest those responsible for downgrading US debt.)
Gun control is part of this religion, it’s part of the dogma, like wealth redistribution, environmentalism, population control, and so much else.  It is not a rational conclusion, it is an article of faith, similar to increasing taxes on the wealthy.  Recall, when Obama was told that increasing capital gains taxes actually reduced tax revenue he said he didn’t care, it was just a matter of principle–it was a moral question to him. In order to be a member in good standing of the Church of State, you don’t need to seek and embrace truth–on the contrary, you must simply embrace the statist ideology in all its fullness without question.
What most (but not all) of these worshipers don’t realize, however, is that the fundamental reason gun control is part of the faith is not a secular humanist concern for fellow men–many stats suggest that men of good will are actually better off with stronger gun rights, all other things being equal–but because their underlying moral code, instead of being based on individual rights and liberty, is based on enlightened, central control.  Therefore, it must be a tenet of the system that only those at the top have real power, and because ultimately all state power rests on firepower, the state must have a monopoly on it. It must be a pillar of the ideology of central control that the citizenry is unarmed–there is simply no other way to implement the collective vision.
The caricaturish megalomaniac Mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, is the very incarnation of this ideology.  While us three-dimensional humans were still reeling in horror at the massacre in Newtown, Bloomberg leaped on the opportunity to pound the table for more gun control exclaiming, “This only happens in America.” A total lie, by the way.  Bloomberg is the most blatant example of the power-hungry, anti-gun rights (not anti-gun), elitist typical of his church’s leadership, from his totalitarian boasting of “I have my own army in the NYPD, which is the seventh biggest army in the world. I have my own State Department,” to his unquenchable desire to control people’s lives (his latest diktat being maximum soda cup size), to his fervent desire that only the government and the government-connected be armed.
Bloomberg was of course simply employing the tactic articulated by his fellow bishop of state, Chicago Mayor Rham Emanuel, who famously said,  “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that, it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”  That’s how those in the inner sanctum deal with the inconvenience of democracy for now, but they may do away with the niceties of persuasion if they end up with all the guns and all the power.
This is part one of a two part post.  See also part two:  From Smallpox to Singapore, A Gun Ban Won’t Work in the U.S.

Comments (7)

totally disagree. I’m sorry, but I no longer believe the government should be hands off when it comes to gun control. There are too many who want to arm the entire populace and fight violence with violence. I don’t want to live in a country like that. So many want to believe that because they are a responsible, careful law-abiding person they should have unfettered gun rights. But, until someone else commits a felony, they too have unfettered gun rights, even if a lot of them are irresponsible and careless. That really concerns me. I consider myself a libertarian in many ways, but if wanting to trust the police and government to control crime rather than vigilantism makes me a socialist, then so be it.

ye so when the police and army kill innocent people that has no affect on you. you don’t weep for the innocents killed all over the world or in our own country when its the government doing the killing. no calls for disarming the government as if you could. just more mindless i will give up all my freedom as long as you kill other peoples kids. somehow their violence doesn’t count. but by all means lets have the pure of heart police and military have all the weapons they only want what best for us. What struct me about this incident and other like is the lack of ability of the police to actually protect people. They cant save you. but like the article explains it a matter of faith i guess.

I should clarify, first of all, that I would never support a complete banning of firearms for citizens. So, it may have been too strong to say that I completely disagree with the original post. But, as for Justin’s comment, it seems obvious but no, I I wouldn’t like it either for the police to kill innocent people. But, I think that’s an unrealistic paranoia to think that we have to protect ourselves from a new communist regime, or whatever you had in mind. I’m just talking about access to assault rifles that hold 30 plus bullets, or cheap handguns that can be bought for $300 or less. What’s so wrong about the government restricting such purchases since there is clearly no sporting purpose?

I respect and appreciate your comments and would like to agree, but I don’t think the gun ban will work (see today’s post), and also, I think our relationship with government is the important issue rather than sporting rights when it comes to the kinds of weapons we have.
I honestly believe that as economic factors erode the stability of a country and the political hierarchy comes under stress, society becomes more violent both from civil unrest and government crackdowns. This has always been common in less developed places but now we see mob violence erupting in western countries like Greece. The only effective defense against this kind of violence are weapons that can actually stand up to that kind of threat. More important to me, however, is that an effectively armed citizenry provides a deterrent to government overreach – it sets clear boundaries beyond which the government knows it cannot go. The NRA alone has set some boundaries by making sure politicians know that if they take away the guns they will lose their power and the politicians know full well that the limited power that they have is better than no power at all. As a person who fears gun accidents more than gun crime, I don’t want guns in my house–so I am grateful to those who keep guns in their homes and send a clear signal to government that there is a real check on their power that is far more practical than any piece of paper like the Constitution which they choose to ignore.
I do agonize over this issue because I am afraid for my children and am sick with sympathy for the victims and their families, but I think it is necessary to take a historical perspective in these historical times – instability leads to unrest and a threatened government becomes violent and oppressive to the extent it can get away with it. I look at the past and I look at other countries and I think, better safe than sorry. To the extent we are not safe because of all the extremely unstable individuals out there, that is an additional problem and one we should address at it’s source, whether that be societal, physiological, mental, pharmacological or something else.

I am not talking about some paranoid government takeover. i am talking about the mass murders going on in the name of us as US citizen both abroad and usually single murderers here done by cops. I am saying if the reaction to mass murder is to disarm the people doing the murdering. Then the logical conclusion would be do disarm the government but i would guess you wouldn’t want that because you think the government protects you. Well for the same reason because i think me and my community protect me i wont give up any gun rights and i think they should be expanded.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.