CSotD: The Will of the People
Skip to comments
Darrin Bell makes the iconic statement.
I like Clay Bennett's declaration that school shootings are the new normal, but here's the distinction that I see:
Bennett's cartoon suggests that we're still trying to protect our children.
Bell's says, rather, "Here is where we are."
And, by God, here is where we are.
We're not trying to protect our children. We simply aren't trying.
Certainly, our schools are creating policies and procedures to keep children safe in the face of a danger that simply grows worse each day, as this HuffPo graphic demonstrates.
But enacting emergency procedures for a situation we do nothing to halt is insanity. It is like keeping the domestic abuse hotline on speed-dial instead of just packing up and getting the hell out before being subjected to yet another beating.
Lee Judge makes a good argument, and, to that extent, this is a really good cartoon. And not only were the two police officers armed, but so was the civilian at Wal-Mart, who was, in fact, "the good person with the gun" that NRA lunatics have wet-dreams about.
He had his concealed weapon, he used it to confront the shooters, he died because dreams are not reality and life is not a Bruce Willis movie.
So, yes, Judge makes a good argument. An excellent argument. But you know what?
F*** arguing with these people.
As Swift observed, "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing which he was never reasoned into."
And as Johnson observed, “If a madman were to come into this room with a stick in his hand, no doubt we should pity the state of his mind; but our primary consideration would be to take care of ourselves. We should knock him down first, and pity him afterwards.”
If stupid people want to believe that dinosaurs and cavemen were best buddies, we should probably pity their ignorance, but it's pretty harmless, aside from the principle that the more credulous we become, the more readily we are led by political predators.
Still, believing that Fred and Barney are historically accurate does not, in itself, leave innocent people dead on our sidewalks and in our school buildings.
Believing ignorant nonsense about the Second Amendment does. And using that sort of ahistorical thinking to encourage paranoid maniacs is particularly toxic to the public good.
Of course it's irrational. Read all about it, if you like, but here's the bottom line:
"Well regulated militia" does not, and never did, mean "chaotic mass of untrained, unregistered gunslingers."
Moreover, the Second Amendment quickly proved as pointless and obsolete as the Third.
Within a quarter century of ratification, the War of 1812 provided several examples of the "well-regulated militia" either refusing to go to battle at all (Fort Erie) or running like rabbits in the face of British regulars (Sackets Harbor, Bladensburg).
The author of the Second Amendment, temporarily homeless due to the results of the Bladensburg Races, said “I could never have believed that so great a difference existed between regular troops and a militia force, if I had not witnessed the scenes of this day.”
I mention this only because I suspect the Second and Third Amendments remain attached to the Constitution for the same reason: The people who wrote them later assumed that they were so clearly obsolete and unnecessary that there was no reason to rescind them.
So much for the wisdom of the Founding Fathers.
I'm all in favor of responsible gun ownership, but, as Wills notes in that above-linked essay, private ownership of personal firearms was not questioned by either side in the debate over the Second Amendment, any more than (lunatic theories to the contrary) does the Constitution at once prohibit treason and encourage armed revolt.
Darrin Bell says it: This is where we are now.
The eloquent simplicity of his piece declares the situation as permanent as the sign.
Meanwhile, liberals are cheering because Eric Cantor lost in yesterday's Republican primaries. Their joy is based on the theory that, because he was defeated by an even more extreme, irrational anarchist, that seat in Congress is sure to fall to the Democratic opponent.
I would as readily believe in the Flintstone Theory of Paleontology as take comfort in that one.
I want campaign spending reform, but the bottom line is this: Cantor outspent his opponent by a massive factor and yet lost.
He lost not because of money but because the people who favored his opponent showed up at the polls.
In a democracy, people get the government they want, either through their action or through their inaction.
The Prez said it.
Comments 2
Comments are closed.