State and Federal Legislators are trying to rush gun restrictions into law before the memory of Sandy Hook fades. It’s important they capitalize on fear, paranoia, and the innumeracy of the pubic before people lose interest and turn their attention to something else.
Many of the restrictions seem reasonable, like background checks, licensing and tests for mental competency. But even the most reasonable restrictions must be opposed, and opposed vehemently, for one very good reason: We know how nannies work. We have already seen their master plan in action.
When anti-smokers asked for, and received, a law mandating smoking and non-smoking sections in airplanes, there was little objection. It was a perfectly reasonable request. After it was in place for a while, they asked for, and received, a smoking ban on flights of less than two hours. That also sounded reasonable.
Imagine, back then, someone raising the following objection: “Folks, if you put this in place, it will eventually lead to a jihad against smokers. Smoking will be banned everywhere. Businesses will be prohibited from providing rooms where their employees can smoke. You won’t be able to smoke in a bar, fer chrisakes. When smokers obligingly go outside to smoke, nannies will complain they’re standing too close to the door, so laws will be passed forcing them to stand fifteen feet from any door or window. Then thirty feet. Smoking will be banned in parks and beaches and in private vehicles. Entire universities will prohibit it anywhere on their campus. People will be banned from smoking in their own homes.”
Anyone making such a claim back then would have been brushed off a loony, but that’s exactly what’s happened. The nannies got one rule, one seemingly reasonable restriction in place, then paused while people got used to it. Then they demanded another restriction, got it, and paused again. Then they did it again, and again, and again. It took them fifty years of baby steps to get to where they are now, and they’re still pushing for even more restrictions.
The anti-gun lobby does not want anyone but the government to own weapons. That is their end goal, but they’re not foolish enough to try to reach that goal immediately. Few of them will even admit it. Ban all guns? Naw, not them. Never! All they want is to make them safer, or to make sure they’re registered so the government knows who has what, or to make sure that mentally unstable people can’t get to them, or to make the magazines smaller, or to limit guns that look scary. That’s all. Simple. Reasonable.
The general public examines their current proposals, thinks about them, reacts to them, and many people support to the ones they think are reasonable. They think that once those reasonable restrictions are in place that will be the end of it. They assume that anyone opposing such things must be come kind of foaming-at-the-mouth gun nut. (And to be fair, there are a few honest-to-goodness foamy gun nuts involved in the conversation.) They are either unaware of the nanny master plan or think that it’s different this time.
It’s not. It never is.
So when people resist any attempts at any restrictions, restrictions you think are perfectly reasonable, don’t assume they’re just some violent whack-job that wants everyone to carry RPGs on the street. They may be people who have looked at the numbers and seen that violent crime is lowest where gun ownership is highest. They may be folks who have studied history and learned that the first thing any tyrant does is disarm the public. They may have concluded that the eleven thousand gun homicides every year in the US are outweighed by the hundreds of thousands of crimes prevented annually by gun-wielding citizens. And maybe, just maybe, they know and understand how nannies of all sorts work, and so understand the importance of opposing any restrictions they want, on anything, ever.
It’s the only reasonable stance to take.