Thursday, February 22, 2018

The moral evil of gun-grabbers


Yes, I'm saying that many (perhaps most) of those seeking to destroy the Second Amendment and confiscate firearms are morally evil.  Why?  Because they're deliberately propagating lies, and promoting an agenda that cannot possibly prevent evil acts such as the Parkland school shooting, while inflicting a different evil on other innocent people.

I've covered the basic arguments before, so I won't waste time doing that again.  Please read the article at that link for more details.  Not only do the anti-gunners refuse to address those points, they actively avoid doing so.  They know that if they do, it'll expose the hollowness of their position, which is not based on logic or fact, but upon emotion and feeling.  CNN's ruthless and cynical exploitation of teenagers to get their point across is a classic example of that.  "Never mind the facts - how do you feel about it?"  I think the best response to that came from a Facebook comment quoted by John Richardson:

Just last week, Congress was calling on Tide to change the design of the Pods so teenagers would stop eating them. This week, teenagers should determine gun policy.

Word.

Now we have members of the mainstream media actually applying pressure to commercial businesses to implement their anti-gun agenda, since they can't persuade lawmakers to do it.  The New York Times opines:

What if the finance industry — credit card companies like Visa, Mastercard and American Express; credit card processors like First Data; and banks like JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo — were to effectively set new rules for the sales of guns in America?

Collectively, they have more leverage over the gun industry than any lawmaker. And it wouldn’t be hard for them to take a stand.

. . .

For example, Visa, which published a 71-page paper in 2016 espousing its “corporate responsibility,” could easily change its terms of service to say that it won’t do business with retailers that sell assault weapons, high-capacity magazines and bump stocks, which make semiautomatic rifles fire faster ... If Mastercard were to do the same, assault weapons would be eliminated from virtually every firearms store in America because otherwise the sellers would be cut off from the credit card system.

There is precedent for credit card issuers to ban the purchase of completely legal products. Just this month, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and Bank of America banned the use of their cards to buy Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.

To be clear: Those three banks won’t let you use your credit card to buy Bitcoin, but they will happily let you use it to buy an AR-15-style semiautomatic rifle — the same kind of gun used in mass shootings in Parkland; Newtown, Conn.; San Bernardino, Calif.; Las Vegas; and Sutherland Springs, Tex.

. . .

Is all of this a pipe dream? Maybe, but I spent the last 72 hours calling and emailing a handful of chief executives to discuss these ideas. None wanted to speak on the record, because it’s a hot-button topic. But all applauded the idea and some said they had already been thinking about it. A few, I discovered later, called their peers to begin a conversation.

. . .

None of this is a panacea. But it’s a start. It takes leadership and courage — exactly what these executives say they have. If they don’t want to back up their words with actions, the next time there’s a school shooting that prompts a conversation about gun companies, it should also include the financial complex that supports them.

There's more at the link.

In so many words, the author is proposing that pressure should be applied to companies conducting lawful business to purchase legal products, in an attempt to stop this.  Clearly, he's not in the least worried about the law.  He's concerned only with his perception of what's right and what's wrong, what's good and what's not.  The fact that others disagree with him is neither here nor there.  If he can whip up enough pressure to make it difficult for law-abiding citizens like you and I to pursue our constitutional rights in buying a firearm, he'll do so, because he doesn't give a damn about us, our rights or our opinions.  Ethics?  Morals?  Laws?  They don't enter into it.  Only his feelings count.  He's arrogating to himself the right to impose his views on us, by hook or by crook, whether we like it or not, whether we agree with him or not.  If that's not evil in and of itself, what is?

There have been many articles following the Parkland shooting - far too many to list here.  You may find the following links useful.  I certainly did, and I highly recommend that you follow them all and read what the authors have to say.  It's eye-opening, sometimes mind-blowing.

There's enough meat at those links to give you food for mental digestion for a long time.  Sadly, the mainstream media won't bother to read or discuss such points of view, or the facts that support them.  They're interested only in whipping up popular indignation to further their agenda.

Most Americans are now aware that we live in an essentially surreal political environment.  A concerted team of political reactionaries guides the national conversation from crisis to crisis, all the while demanding further expansions of federal government power and the repudiation of government of the people, by the people, and for the people.  A special group of professional complainants has taken over. Let's call it IndigNation.  Its members' sense of "outrage" at every perceived slight and misinterpretation drives them into ever greater commitments to their increasingly autonomous IndigNation.

. . .

At present, IndigNation has as its propaganda focus the deaths of 17 teachers and students in Broward County, Florida.  Their deaths can mean only one thing: more gun control.  IndigNation has had it.  Its members are fed up, and they will not take it anymore!  Rallies will commence, and the media cameras will be turned on, and the minders of social media will allow the narratives to coalesce around the grand theme of gun control.  The killer, Cruz, wore a "Make America Great Again" cap while he practiced with his firearm.  ABC News falsely reported that he was a member of a white nationalist group.  It all fits together for a mob mentality against the injustice of the crime.

IndigNation does not blame the government.  Only political figures seeking to limit the government are a threat and worthy of demise and removal.

. . .

There is no reasonable limit to their rage.  What is wrong in their minds goes beyond reason.  Pure emotion must be unleashed, and what better rhetorical vehicle than "the children"?  They were so innocent, and the Enemy is so guilty.  This is the terminology that escalates and spirals.  "Thoughts and prayers" are a conspiracy against the innocent.  No one should say such things!  People who say Jesus speaks to them are mentally ill.

Again, more at the link.

The greatest danger is that, in the face of such an unrelenting, massive onslaught against fact, right and reason, we shall grow weary of the struggle and simply give up.  I know some who've done that.  They've grown tired of arguing with family and friends, and see themselves as a minority assailed on all sides.  It's easier for them to "go with the flow" and simply give up.  That way lies disaster, both for us and for our society and nation.

As Edmund Burke famously said, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing".  In the face of such refusal to acknowledge or deal with law, facts or reality - which is, to my mind, unquestionably a moral and ethical evil - we dare not do nothing.  If we buckle, if we knuckle under, evil will triumph.  Our children, and our children's' children, will curse our memories for that.

Peter

14 comments:

Jess said...

I don't worry much about the gun grabbers, but I do worry about the media. They're more dangerous, and will only be controlled, when they lose enough revenue due to the lack of viewers.

Tirno said...

The NRA and NSSF are probably about --><-- that far away from setting up a jointly operated bank to support the firearms industry and their consumers.

Remember that 'credit cards' were once know as 'bank cards', because they were specific to the issuing bank, and only later were they spun off as independent entities because MOAR MONEY. A credit card that is only valid as long as you are not a prohibited person would be a term&condition that Mastercard and Visa wouldn't get involved with, but could work for a new venture.

Hell, mix in some form of integral crowdfunding mechanism, and that could change the face of the industry.

exfarmkid said...

A most thoughtful post. Thank you.

raven said...

In every civil war, after the carnage is over, the exhausted survivors lament how the press did it's best to inflame anger and tension. They thrive on lies and incitement.



housefitter said...

And thus my concern with "digital only" financial system... if they can keep the firearms trade tamped down in that manner... what will be the next item the SJW's don't think you should have and will prevent you from having by just not allowing a transaction? It's a matter of "control"... just like going to all electric or all driverless cars that can be controlled by satellite. If they decided people shouldn't go more than 10 miles from where they live "because:energy waste", then they could literally imprison nearly everyone within whatever boundary they wish. Boston Robotics "sheepdogs" could literally herd everyone else "back where they belong". The futures so bright... gotta wear Terminator shades.

Gorges Smythe said...

I believe most gun shops would give up using credit card companies before they gave up selling semi-autos. People shouldn't be buying guns on credit, anyway. That's poor financial management.

Anonymous said...

I'm currently reading an excellent new history about the Russian Revolutions of 1917-1919 and their aftermath. I'm at the part where the Bolsheviks have started shooting people with "illegal firearms," meaning anyone they do not like or who they suspect might not like their policies. At the moment I have 0 patience for arguments about why I need to give up my right to protect myself from predators with four or two feet.

LittleRed1

SiGraybeard said...

You don't need to know anything beyond the CNN audience chanting "burn her" to Dana Loesch last night to know the current iteration of these people is nothing but pure evil.

Like the guy telling Marco Rubio, "when I look at you I see an AR-15 barrel pointed at me and I don't feel safe". That's not conversation, that's an executioner looking for a weapon.



Andrew said...

The credit and bank companies have, with the Feds permission, already tried this against knife and gun parts manufacturers. Quite successfully, too.

This has been a long time coming from the left's side.

And then there is the other tactic that can be used, and has been used successfully against Remington. Buy a company, mortgage it to the hilt, declare bankruptcy, laugh all the way to the bank.

This is what happens when 'Emotions' and 'Feelings' are pushed to a higher level than 'Logic' and 'Formal Debate.'

Uncle Lar said...

Some wag was pontificating that the shooter should have been banned from owning a weapon of war and restricted to something such as a bolt action .30-06.
I'd like to say my jaw dropped, but I'm embarrassed to say I've become conditioned to expect such twaddle from the left.
I expect it's not needed here, but for those few who don't know their gun history, from the turn of the last century up through World War II the .30-06 Springfield, the 8mm 98 Mauser, the 7.62 x 54 Mosin Nagant, and the .303 Short Model Lee Enfield, each and every one a bolt action rifle, were the ultimate terrible weapons of war and responsible for tens to hundreds of thousands of deaths.
This is always the way, the gun control crowd and the media (but I repeat myself) are ignorant of the simplest firearm facts and extremely proud of their condition. As anyone who knows firearms is more than aware, if the shooter had been using a shotgun with buckshot the death toll could easily have been far greater, but that simple does not fit their narrative of demonizing an under powered varmint rifle that looks scary to the uninformed.

Reltney Mcfee said...

"Just last week, Congress was calling on Tide to change the design of the Pods so teenagers would stop eating them. This week, teenagers should determine gun policy."

John Richardson wins the internet!

tron3dfx said...

" As Edmund Burke famously said, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing". In the face of such refusal to acknowledge or deal with law, facts or reality - which is, to my mind, unquestionably a moral and ethical evil - we dare not do nothing. "

Hear Hear, well said Peter. Tired of listening to whiners and cowards everywhere, we have to stand up wherever possible.

Unknown said...

I like how Trump has done and end-run around the normal gun-grabbers by advocating that the solution is to arm teachers and other school employees.

This has completely changed the debate away from the normal anti-gun script

Constitutional Insurgent said...

This should be mandatory reading by the Parkland students, before they're allowed to speak on CNN.

Reposted.