What happens when the Constitution is respected only in the breach
Or referenced and cited only when it is politically expedient to call on its protections. At all other times it is but an old document quilled by whigged white misogynistic racists of the propertied gentry who, like savages, brought insurrection and destruction against a dignified Monarchy. Much of it right from inside Massachusetts!
To wit: “Town of Westford Moving Forward with Unprecedented Gun Ban” (this being one of those occasions where the Constitution is racist and can therefore be ignored. Nay, must be! For the children!)
Westford Selectman, Bob Jeffries, has proposed a bylaw that will significantly affect the 2nd Amendment rights of the residents of Westford. If the bylaw passes it will do the following:
*Ban all firearms that accept a magazine.
*This affects firearms used by law abiding citizens for the purpose of home defense, self-defense, small game hunting, sporting, target shooting, and competition shooting.
*Owners would have 90 days to remove all banned firearms from town or surrender them to the police.
*Violators may be penalized by indictment or complaint in district court.
*Violators would face a fine of $100 for first offense, $200 for second, and $300 for third.
Were I a legislator in Westford, I’d introduce a bill that affects every other right in the Bill of Rights in a similar way. For instance, I’d introduce a bill that bans all methods of information dissemination that uses binary code, movable type, or mass printing machinery and typographic plates; I’d introduce a bill that redefines “soldier,” for the purpose of quartering, as “only those wearing tri-point hats, white stockings, and red coats; I’d introduce legislation that seeks to expand probable cause to include “those who just look kind of sketchy”; and so on down the list.
The fact is, while Heller does make some allowance for restrictions on firearm ownership, it doesn’t allow any state or locality to create restrictions that are meant specifically to undermine the very natural right laid out in the Bill of Rights and protected from government.
It’s time to maybe point out the absurdity of such measures — and take away the power they possess when politicians, bathed in crocodile tears, use emotional blackmail to bring about the kinds of policy changes that fundamentally impinge upon our natural rights.
During Colorado’s gun debate, I begged my Rep, the very pro-Second Amendment Rep Lori Saine, to go into the well and introduce as an amendment legislation that would ban criminals — and offer it as a more effective counter to the “epidemic” of bad “gun violence” than those measures on offer from the Majority Democrats (who, for instance, used mass shootings in gun free zones in both Aurora and Connecticut to pass legislation creating of college campuses new gun free zones. With a straight face, even).
Arguing with these anti-liberty crusaders by using facts doesn’t work: I watched the Democrats in the Colorado assembly act just as many progressives in blog comment sections act: you point them to facts, they ignore you, then they demand you present facts disputing their emotional claim that gun bans would of course stop violence.
John Lott proposed we argue on the ground of safety, but as we saw with the campus gun ban, so long as whistles are available, suck it up, ladies, or pretend you have the crabs. Plus, buddy system! You don’t need guns. And even if you do, making professors feel safe from the hickish rural rightwing gun nuts while they are indoctrinating you is more important than your natural right to self-protection, which of course stops the minute you enter a bastion of open-minded free-thinking and diversity.
So what’s left, I think, is Swiftian ridicule. Smile and sneer and ironize as the left does — then mock their fake outrage (instead of going out of your way, as the GOP representatives in the CO assembly did, to insist that the bills’ sponsor(s) was a serious person advancing serious, workable solutions to some problem that, statistically speaking, doesn’t exist).
Instead, though, we have poll-watching cowards within the GOP who are ready, on the national level, to sacrifice our freedoms for some good press from the NYT.
At least in Colorado none of this passed with bi-partisan support. Giving voters a moment of clarity going forward.
The GOP establishment doesn’t like such clarity. Because they like a centralized ruling class, and they figure that the electoral pendulum will swing their way eventually no matter what, so what’s important now is making sure there aren’t enough Hobbits around when it does to ruin their turn at the trough.
(h/t RI Red)