Writing an opinion piece for The Forecaster, self-described “liberal” Edgar Allen Beem is upset that Senator Harry Reid’s (D-NV) S. 649 will not include a ban of so-called “assault weapons” among its numerous other infringements on that which shall not be infringed. Beem does not pretend to believe such a ban would pass, but he has another reason for wanting it in the bill:
I wish he had brought the ban up for a vote, not because I think it would have passed, but just to tick off the National Rifle Association and its minions.
Well that sounds like a guy who knows that any government’s only legitimate purpose is to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”
I would still support a ban just to make the statement that two-thirds of Americans don’t own guns and are opposed to civilian ownership of military weapons.
Fortunately for Mr. Beem and his extremely generously estimated “two thirds of Americans,” so-called “assault weapons” are not “military weapons” (by virtue of not being in the inventory of any military in the world).
Beem notes that one of the difficulties in banning so-called “assault weapons” is that they are difficult to define in such a way that would ban all the politically incorrect firearms, without banning those guns that are (for now) out of reach of the gun prohibitionist lobby:
Just as nefarious politicos immediately find ways around any attempt to limit campaign contributions, wily arms merchants would surely change names and minutiae of design to thwart the intent of an assault weapons ban.
Changing the “minutiae of design to thwart the intent of an assault weapons ban” is, of course, another way of saying complying with the ban–but in a way that offends Beem.
He notes the exemptions listed in Sen. Feinstein’s (D-CA) S. 150, and describes it as a good faith effort on Feinstein’s part to avoid banning all semi-automatic rifles and pistols–something that would be “fine with [him],” because he doesn’t “want or need” a semi-automatic firearm. Beem’s wants and needs, apparently, should determine what can be legitimately banned.
Near the end, he makes the archetypical “progressive” argument:
A ban on assault weapons would have made a lot of us feel better even if it didn’t work, but the evil genie is already out of the bottle.
He knows it won’t reduce violence, but would “feel better” if our freedoms were thus trampled. Sound familiar?
But as today’s title promises, despite Beem’s utter confusion on just about everything else, he did get one very important point right:
And I can only begin to imagine the American blood bath if law enforcement personnel were sent out to try to disarm the gun crazies.
OK–“gun crazies” wasn’t the part he got right (except among those who believe that fighting for one’s Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms is “crazy”).
No, what he got right–the only part he and other gun-haters need to get right–is that to attempt to disarm the American citizenry is to provoke an explosion of “gun violence” that would make him nostalgic for the relative serenity of the blood-soaked days of the crack wars in the late ’80s and early ’90s (when “gun violence” was dramatically higher than it is now).
Tell your friends, Beem. Tell every elected official who lets you bend his ear. We will not be disarmed, because the lessons of history are not lost on us. If you are serious about “saving lives,” this is your chance.
If not? Molon Labe.
- Vanderboegh: A Handgun Against An Army – Ten Years After
- A Vanderboegh Classic: What I Have Learned From the Twentieth Century
- Back by popular demand: “What is a Three Percenter?”
- “You’re not scaring away the big, bad government with your .38.” Really? How about a single shot .45?
- “Progressive” historical amnesiac sez: “You want a gun so you can kill police or soldiers. Are you out of your minds?”
- “Delusional”: “What the heck are you doing with over 200 AK47s?”
- Another “Resistance Is Futile” Pimp, this time one claiming to be a professor of history. (I’m guessing he didn’t study much.)
- Four years after, “Resistance is Futile”: Waco Rules vs. Romanian Rules. Of simple minds and changing times.
- Breitbart is right–we DO have the guns
- Gun ban advocates must decide if they’re willing–and able–to kill 50,000,000+