Tuesday, December 18, 2012

A Passionate Ignorance

     Passionate ignorance appears to inform (if that's the right word) the anti-gun side of debate.  Much of what the antis trot out as "facts" simply isn't so, and the mis- and disinformation runs right up to the politicians gravely informing us of their desire to regulate a basic human right.

     How do you counter it?  What can you say to people whose toleration of cognitive dissonance is so huge that even as they say "military-style weapons have no place on our streets," they're sending in police armed with M-16s (likely real ones, as in full-auto) and calling for National Guardsmen to be deployed, one per facility, to protect schools, armed with, yes, M-16 military weapons.  That have no place on our streets.  Ahem. (Only police and soldiers should have such weapons?  Really?)

     Then there's the "guns are easier to buy than [...common item...]" meme.  Utter nonsense, of course, and doubly so in states that restrict or prohibit private firearms sales.  Even at gun shows,even here in gun-friendly Indiana, most selling is by Federal Firearms License holders and you fill out the same Federal 4473 and get the same NICS background check as you do at the gun store.  (The background check system is unavailable to anyone but FFLs; funny, that.)

     ...The list goes on and on, most of it half-true at best.  Answer it with facts whenever you can.

     The pols are going to Do Something and we're going to need to use the soapbox and the ballot box.  What they will do, how far they might go -- I'm not sure and it worries me.  While I'd kind of like to see 'em try to go too far and get smacked right down for it, in Congress and the courts, I do worry that really excessive overreach could result in an escalating mess.  React -- but don't over-react.  And keep an eye out for tripwires.


Anonymous said...

Sad but true. The ban is inevitable.
Wal-Mart & Dick’s announced that they are removing “assault rifles” from sale.
and several NRA “A” rated lawmakers now support a ban on rifles and extended magazines.

BatChainPuller said...

I am not a CT resident so I was not aware of the fact that the Lanza rifle was compliant with the 1994 AWB and would probably be compliant with a re-implemented Feinstein ban. That is, except for the use of high speed assault clips.

perlhaqr said...

I had a rather uplifting moment in which a young lady of my acquaintance made a hasty hyperbolic statement that there were "more laws controlling her uterus than there are controlling guns in this country".

Which, upon further discussion, she admitted had been hyperbolic and, in fact, mistaken. And listened to me when I pointed out that there were something like 20,000 firearms laws in this country, and that up until the shooter murdered his mother and stole the guns used in his rampage, none of them had been broken. But expecting someone who has already gone that far off the reservation to follow the 20,001st law was utter madness.

Roberta X said...

I don't think it is inevitable, TSG. I think we all need to work hard to stop it.

Wolfman said...

To say that the ban is inevitable is bunk. Yes, we've had some high profile turnover, but we havent lost yet, so don't sell the whole thing down the river. We just need to stay collected, use facts and truth to combat their lies ans misinformation, and keep pushing on our congressmen and neighbors. Keep reminding people that YOU are the face of gun ownership, not some faceless evil of Dianne's handpainted nightmare.

Phssthpok said...

"...and calling for National Guardsmen to be deployed, one per facility, to protect schools, armed with, yes, M-16 military weapons."

Yes, because we all know how well THAT turns out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

Anonymous said...

The country just re-elected someone who holds the balance of powers principle of our system in more or less open contempt. I'm not sure he worries too much about Congress and the courts.

My unscientific guess is that around half the country hates the other half, and vice versa. Perhaps more accurate to say the the country folk hate the city folk? Gee, I wonder what the Occupukes are going to get up to this spring?

Lines are hardened about as much as they can be without the whole merry mess breaking down into open conflict--okay, that might be a touch hyperbolic. Banners can't get what they want without imposing tyranny, and those of us who would see closer attention paid to weeding out the nuts amongst us (funny how many of these rampage shooters are found to have psych meds in their systems, isn't it?) would have to impose a tyranny of our own, is what I'm trying to get at.

One side probably doesn't want to hear me tell them that I feel bad about those poor little children, but I have no plans to give up one of the Bill of Rights. Anyone who voted to re-elect the guy who keeps Eric Holder as his Attorney General hasn't got a damn thing to say to me about the subject.

Persuade the people in the middle, I guess is the plan. Any suggestions for how to play this are welcome from my point of view.

Mike James

og said...

it is an uphill battle.

Eric Hoffer in "The True Believer":
All active mass movements strive, therefore, to interpose a fact-proof screen between the faithful and the realities of the world. They do this by claiming that the ultimate and absolute truth is already embodied in their doctrine and that there is no truth or certitude outside it.

We have already fought this battle, and won it. We cannot let it happen again.

Stuart the Viking said...

It has been real back-and-forth when it comes to firearms rights hasn't it? With the AWB of the 90s and early 00s we were told by the anti-gunners that they had won. Then came the swing the other direction with the AWB being allowed to sunset, and the Heller and McDonald cases (yes, it goes back further, but geesh, this is just a comment not a book).

Now we have this. It's probably going to swing the other direction for a while because "Passionate Ignorance" is incredibly hard to combat. Will the anti-rights statists in congress succeed in cramming through another Assault Weapons ban? Or worse, a complete gun ban*? Who knows? Maybe, maybe not. I'm sure that Obama would jump to sign it before the ink was even dry. Obama doesn't have to worry about re-election. Maybe he'll even push the agenda. If they do so, will there be a push back from the electorate? Probably. If it's big enough, maybe the whole thing will swing back the pro-gun way.


* For the record, I don't think a complete gun ban is even on the table, but it surely is in the dreams of the anti.

Old NFO said...

Excellent point...

JohninMd.(help!) said...

Thomas Dodd re-engineered the German weapons acts of 1934 into the Gun Control Act of 1968 in the wake of the assinations of JFK, RFK & MLK. The antis know the power of public outrage in the aftermath of these atrocities. If we don't get unified quickly we're gonna be playin' catch-up for another 20 years.

Jim said...

My personal favorite to date is an AP report which suggests we also need to outlaw the "caliber" of EBRs.

Anonymous said...

[url=http://www.cheapcanadagooseparkas.ca]kensington canada goose parka[/url] These hotels assist the guests with all basic amenities and other facilities required for comfortable stay. [url=http://www.busesbitermi.com]dr dre beats heartbeats cheap[/url] Unplej
[url=http://www.christianlouboutindiscountsale.co.uk]christian louboutin[/url] [url=http://www.ogrelarp.com]Canada Goose Jacken outlet[/url] Wifdms [url=http://www.pandorajewelryukonsale.co.uk]pandora Sale[/url]