New Republic: Let’s Ban All Guns

The masks worn by the political Left are slipping. They talked a good game of wanting “common sense gun reform”, but told us that they weren’t looking for confiscation or overall bans. Then, a few, including Hillary, Obama, and the NY Times, yammered about the “Australian solution”, which was overall confiscation. We’ve seen a few call for bans and confiscation, especially the more unhinged far left. Here we have Phoebe Maltz Bovy writing what the Left really thinks

From the article

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. (snip)

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.

Gotta love those “national conversations.” Of course, we aren’t allowed to have one when it comes to radical jihad, that 50% of the US shootings are performed by a group that comprises less than 14% of the population, or that crime has actually gone down as gun ownership has gone up.

Oh, and then there’s this guy, Governor of Connecticut, who’s looking to use executive action to violate constitutional rights

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

8 Responses to “New Republic: Let’s Ban All Guns”

  1. drowningpuppies says:

    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)

    No further comment needed.

  2. Mike says:

    Ban The New Republic. Neither of their readers will miss it much.

  3. Jeffery says:

    You cannot ban all guns without repealing the 2nd Amendment. Good luck.

  4. sailor tom says:

    can’t claim credit for this but:
    “I won’t listen to someone lecture me about gun control when they also believe in killing babies”

  5. Paul says:

    “A common misconception is that firearms are illegal in Australia and that no individual may possess them. Although it is true that Australia has tough firearms laws, rifles and shotguns (both of which include semi-automatics), as well as handguns, are all legal.

    As of 2015 about 815,000 people had a gun license in Australia and there were around 3.5 to 5.5 million Registered Firearms in Australia,[1] with an estimated 1 to 6 million illegal firearms.”

  6. John says:

    Of course jihadists on the no fly list have a constitutional right to own guns
    Only a lefty who disagree with that

  7. Nate says:

    Ever notice, the folks who use the term ‘common-sense’ usually wouldn’t know what common sense was, even if it came up and bit them in the a$$?

  8. gitarcarver says:

    Of course jihadists on the no fly list have a constitutional right to own guns
    Only a lefty who disagree with that

    john is so cute when he tries to be snarky and fails.

    The problem is, of course that the no fly list contains people that are not jihadists and not a threat to anyone. It is estimated that 50% of people on the list are there because of error and not because they are a threat or suspected threat.

    As Teach notes in his post, once on the no fly list, it is darn near impossible to get off of it. The administrative appeal precess is long and costly which means essentially people are paying for the list and then paying for the government screw up to get off the list.

    If you are going to deny people rights, then at least have a process that allows them to challenge the denial. As it is now, the administration and many on the left want to deny people their rights without any recourse. Of course, that goes against the who Bill of Rights and “due process,” but the left’s instance on no fly list ban on guns only further illustrates that the left doesn’t care one iota about the rights of people.

Pirate's Cove