Skip to main content

Gun Control: An Immodest Proposal

This is likely to be a rather unpopular blog entry. In fact, I may take as much heat from my friends on the left as from my enemies on the right. I'll be accused of "making a bad situation worse instead of better." I'll be accused of "playing right into the hands of the crazies." Maybe those who say that will ultimately be proven right. Nevertheless, hear me out. Or don't; you're free to choose just how wide or narrow your range of incoming information is.

Anyway, what prompted me to write this was a news report I read this morning. It said that three Republican Senators, including Rand Paul from Kentucky, intend to block a bill that would expand background checks before gun sales, that has strong bipartisan support, and that Trump says he is eager to sign. This is essentially identical to what happened shortly after the Sandy Hook massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, when a bipartisan bill to expand background checks was blocked by two Republican Senators.

This is the nightmare Groundhog Day is which our nation is trapped. A score or so of innocent children are blown away by an angry, disenfranchised loner with a military grade weapon he should never have gotten his hands on. Conservatives offer "thoughts and prayers." Decent, caring people all over the country demand that "something be done." The NRA starts screaming that "liberals are trying to take away everyone's freedom." A bipartisan bill is defeated by a few Republican lawmakers who are in the pocket of the gun lobby. Pause; repeat sequence. Pause; repeat sequence. Pause; repeat sequence.

So here's my proposal. My fellow liberals are always trying to placate the rabid, "from-my-cold-dead-hand" gun fetishists who scream, "Liberals want to repeal the Second Amendment! Liberals want to take all our guns away!" They reassure them, "No one wants to repeal the Second Amendment; no one wants to take your guns away."

I am now convinced that this is the wrong approach. It convinces gun proponents that we are weak and can be easily intimidated. They are, after all, the loud,crazy ones; we're the ones proposing "sensible solutions" and "reasonable regulations," and loud and crazy always beats sensible and reasonable.

Instead, we need to call their bluff. We need to start screaming, "Repeal the Second Amendment!" over and over, every chance we get. We need to demand "No guns anywhere, ever." Put it on bumper stickers. Wear it on tee shirts. When TV news people ask us, "Don't you think this is going too far?" we need to shout, "No! Not far enough!"

Why do this? To frighten the gun lobby. We need to scare them out of their wits. We need to make them live in as much fear as our children do when they go to school, or as the rest of feel just going about our business. We need to show them that we're done living in fear of being shot for no reason on a random day; if the thing that scare them most is losing their guns, then by all means it is THEY who must now live in fear.

Some will say, "But this is exactly what they've been saying all along -- that liberals want to take their guns. They're just going to adopt a bunker mentality and hold onto their guns even harder." Temporarily, that's true. But once that happens, we'll be in a position for moderate and liberal lawmakers to say, "Okay, instead of repealing the Second Amendment and confiscating everyone's guns, we're just going to try expanding universal background checks, and also banning bump stocks, semiautomatic rifles, and high-capacity magazines, and see how that goes." My guess is that terrified gun fanatics will breathe a sigh of relief and go along with it. Hell, they'll probably think THEY won, because we "backed off" and didn't take their guns.

So that's my proposal. Don't ask for less that what you want and get nothing; demand way more than what you want and get what you really wanted all along. It's an old gambit, but it just might work.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Response to an Editorial by William FB O’Reilly Defending Substandard Yehiva Education

This letter was sent to Newsday in response to a guest editorial that appeared on 4/9/18: William FB O'Reilly is way off base when he takes the position that yeshiva education that is woefully inadequate in all areas except religion should be protected as a matter of "freedom." He melodramatically declares that "it might ultimately decide the degree to which the state can determine what we are allowed to value and how we are permitted to think." Should we not value English, science, and mathematics? Teaching these basic skills does not dictate how we are permitted to think; it gives us the tools with which to think. By depriving their students of these skills, it is the yeshivas, and not the state, who are guilty of dictating what their students are permitted to think. The argument that the Orthodox have "been at this for 3,500 years" is ludicrous; 3,500 years ago slavery and human sacrifice were widely practiced, but we've moved beyond ancient s...