Previous

Contents

Next

That So-Called ''Conversation''
by Paul Bonneau
zzpaulbx1dfghnet

Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

Have you noticed how the "conversation" on gun control is conducted?

First, the Ministry of Propaganda interviews only gun prohibitionists and a few turncoat gun owners on TV (although Piers Morgan made a big mistake having Larry Pratt on his show). And the starting point of this "conversation" is that something has to be done, and that something is some form of additional victim disarmament.

This I find strange, since Newtown was an abject failure of victim disarmament policies. When something fails, shouldn't the starting point of the conversation, be the idea that we should get rid of it? Wouldn't we look at the proven Israeli success of the opposite policy, namely arming the teachers?

Of course the mystery is explained when you realize that this "conversation" is actually an ersatz conversation; in fact it is no conversation at all. "Conversation" is just their euphemism for a mad scramble for that government cudgel. By definition, anything accomplished via politics has no characteristic of a real conversation; rather, it is "who does what to whom" as Lenin noted. Can you imagine stepping outside to have a conversation with your neighbor, starting with that basis? For example, "George, I have decided to beat you up. The only thing left to decide is how bad your beating will be. Let's talk about it."

Some have noted that the TV commentators (a euphemism for "liars") seem to be dancing in the blood of the dead children. I find this description to be a bit harsh, but it is true there appears to be an unseemly eagerness in their demeanor as they push their program of disarmament. But I get it, I really do. They have a limited amount of time to ram this program through, before the average man on the street comes to terms with the horror, and comes back to his senses on government policies. The disarmament crowd has no choice but to push, push, push. Disarmament is fundamentally not in the average man or woman's interest, and the window for the opportunity to do so is small, before they realize what is really going on.

"That's right, sir, you won't be able to defend your own family when the economy crashes and the food riots start -- unless you have decided to disobey the government confiscators (always a good idea). Are you sure you approve of going this route to somehow (it's never explained exactly how) prevent any more Newtowns?"

It may already be too late for the confiscators; although the politicians might still be swayed by the ersatz "conversation". But politicians don't like their peasants armed in any case, so there are no surprises there. It could be a law will be passed, or an executive order given (now THAT is sure to be considered legitimate, heh). However, it is one thing to pass a law, another thing entirely to enforce it.

Personally, I think the chance of adopting the Israeli solution is about zero, but the chance of nothing at all happening is pretty good. After all, it is the holiday season, and the congresscritters want to come home, and they also want to be re-elected next time around. They are pretty good at sticking their finger into the air to see which way the wind is blowing, and may not be fooled by the ersatz "conversation" after all.

But, if they stupidly go the victim disarmament route, I really hope they follow the less moderate proposals, the complete confiscations. Attempting to disarm a man is an act of war, and if they want war, they are going to get it. This country really could use a good Revolution again, just as Jefferson said. That, or mass secession from the District of Criminals...

Was that worth reading?
Then why not: