“Cops Disarmed By Ammo-Hoarding Gun Nuts, Complains Salon Writer”
Or, to put it another way, “Liberal Salon writer pretends to care that the brutish pigs are complaining that other citizens beat them to the ammo that they are used to having in plentiful supply.”
I ask you this in all sincerity: does anyone anywhere anymore believe that the arguments coming from these anti-foundationalist bullshit artists have even an inkling of integrity to them? Or is it becoming universally clear that liberals will adopt whatever stance they think might work at whatever opportunity they think it most likely to work in to promote their anti-liberty, pro-big government agenda?
I admit, I do find it funny how many on the left — who not too long ago were busy berating the very idea of oinkers and taking dumps on their patrol cars — are starting to realize that they’re going to need these mustached peacekeepers to enforce the provisions of the benevolent Utopian police state they desire, and so as a consequence are having to find ways to rehabilitate the poor men and women in blue who Joshua Micha Marshall Jingleheimer Schmidt demands protect him and his.
Funny, but not at all persuasive.
More like strained. Or pathetic. But hey: if you think you can sell it — to manufacture that new consent and peddle it to the mewling masses you are so desperate to manage — have at it. So long as people like Reason’s J.D. Tuccille are available to respond:
The thin blue line is getting thinner, warns Salon‘s Alex Seitz-Wald. It seems that after months of politicians throwing gun control proposals against the wall in D.C. and the various state capitals to see what sticks (and around politicians, lots of stuff gets awfully sticky), gun owners had the unmitigated gall to take them seriously and stock up on guns and ammunition while they can. And now police departments are having trouble buying ammunition. And gun owners are just being nutty, says Seitz-Wald, because politicians didn’t mean it. Well, maybe they meant it, but nothing much is going to become law. And even if it did, won’t you think of our brave boys (and girls) in blue?
I’ve noted the run on guns and ammunition before. Reloading supplies, too. Then, as now, the run was caused by politicians proposing restrictive laws, including background checks for ammunition purchases. As unlikely to pass as those proposals seem, especially as panic recedes and public support for further firearm restrictions dies down, at least gun owners did politicians the courtesy of taking them at their words. In fact, many high-profile political-appointee police chiefs endorsed those restrictions. Now government officials and their armed enforcers thin blue line against the criminal element are having trouble buying ammunition, just like everybody else. Boo fucking hoo.
Oh wait. Did President Obama just go on television today to reiterate his demand that we all get with the program and support tighter restrictions on firearms? Nothing to see here. Move along. Pay no attention to the man behind the insincere frown of disappointment.
Hey, there’s no doubt that gun and ammunition companies are doing booming business at the moment, falling behind on orders because they just can’t meet demand. Want that to stop? Get politicians to stop threatening to impose restrictive laws. Until then, people will certainly buy what they can, while they can.
Oh, and if cops are running short on ammunition, maybe they could ask the Department of Homeland Security to share. Fifteen members of Congress recently wrote (PDF) to Janet Napolitano to ask why DHS needs to buy 1.6 billion rounds of ammo when the federal government is pleading poverty.
One of the best things to come from the current anti-gun push is the move by gun makers to tell lawmakers that, in states where they restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens, those manufacturers will refuse sale to law enforcement. Because this is in direct response to the alarming numbers within the political branch of the law enforcement community who have eagerly and vocally worked with Democrat lawmakers to abridge the rights of lawful gun owners.
Similarly, the elected sheriffs who have stood up and protested these abridgments have separated themselves — along with many rank and file LEOs — from the political branch of law enforcement that is interested more in creating from the law-abiding new criminals than in catching those extant and violent criminals against whom these new laws will have no effect.
There’s some clarifying going on. Which has been instructive. And to my mind, is quite welcomed.
(h/t John B)