Washington Post Editorial Board: “Only Mischief Makers Promote Gun Sanctuaries”
BY Herschel Smith
4 years, 11 months ago
The Washington Post Editorial Board.
In Virginia, the movement has lately become a fad, spurred by legislative election results that will, starting in January, hand pro-gun control Democrats control of both houses of the General Assembly for the first time in a generation. With a Democrat also in the governor’s mansion, some rural Republicans are raising the specter of mass gun confiscations — and pronouncing themselves Second Amendment Sanctuaries.
[ … ]
In Virginia, local governing bodies in a few dozen Appalachian southwest and central Piedmont counties have passed or are considering resolutions declaring themselves gun sanctuaries. In many, longtime gun owners are hunters who say their way of life is threatened by liberal lawmakers in Richmond.
This is nonsense fanned by mischief-makers with an agenda. In fact, the gun legislation with the best chance of passage would promote public safety by requiring universal background checks — a measure with overwhelming bipartisan support among Virginians in public opinion surveys. Other bills with broad support would limit the number and types of weapons that can be sold. For instance, by restricting handgun purchases by individuals to one per month — an anti-trafficker measure that was the law in Virginia for 20 years before it was repealed in 2012.
The only cases in which gun confiscation could take place would be if the legislature enacts a “red flag” bill, which would allow law enforcement authorities to take away firearms from individuals deemed a threat to themselves or others. Such laws, which have received bipartisan support in many states, generally depend on an order from a judge who would consider evidence presented in court.
Local authorities who refuse such orders would be thumbing their noses not just at state law but also at judicial orders — and they should be removed from office and prosecuted. Short of that, however, the gun sanctuary movement seems mainly symbolic, another manifestation of growing division in an increasingly tribal nation.
It would be too laborious to fisk this completely, but let’s make a few important points.
First, notice the literary device right out of the gate. Vigilantism = Rugged American Individualism, or at least it conjures that image. They could have said that hard work and self reliance = rugged American individualism, or that a free market economy conjures images of rugged American individualism.
But they didn’t. They equated rugged American individualism with vigilantism. This is no mistake, for they like neither one. The inside-the-beltway culture holds the collectivist value system in high regard. It takes a village, you know.
Next up, they equate the offended with hunters whose way of life may be threatened. Nonsense, say they. Only this isn’t really what’s happening. Hunters, many of them, still use bolt action rifles, and during black powder season they won’t even use centerfire cartridges. Prior to that, it’ll be bow season, and the Eastern states still have an awful lot of bow hunters.
They alleged, if you read carefully, that some ne’er-do-wells are agitating this on. It’s not the hunters who are to blame for this, it’s some careful political craft that hopes to make hay of the situation. Except it’s not true. To the collectivist mind, the peasants need leadership, and most often, the media elites see themselves as leaders, perhaps right right up there with elected officials. If the peasants are revolting, it must be because of a peasant leader who’s agitating them on, perhaps even lying to them. The real reason the peasants are showing up en masse is because someone has lit a fire, not because of anything they really believe.
This is delusionary. The editorial board knows this and is whistling through the graveyard, or they don’t know this and are oblivious to the civil war they are about to foment. This is the same mistake the collectivists make when they blame Trump for political polarization. Trump, as I’ve said before, is a symptom of the problem, not the problem. Trump didn’t cause polarization. Trump was elected because America is already polarized. For most gun rights folks, Trump is seen as a traitor, and his mistake is not being true to the constitution (bump stock ban, support for red flag laws, etc.). It would come as a shock to the media elites that there are actually people in America who see things the way my readers do, far to the right of Donald Trump. Flyover country is the “land out there,” not something they actually visit.
But most Americans don’t need leadership, and don’t vote the way they do, or own guns, or make any other decision, because a “leader” says this or says that. Rugged American individualism doesn’t have the peasant / leader division.
Next up we have the reflexive defense of “red flag” laws. That social media is planning to roll political beliefs into FedGov background information they either don’t care about or don’t know. And the notion that an angry spouse can flag another spouse and have firearms confiscated by police (which we have seen before over these very pages), all without due process, they either don’t know about or don’t care. They don’t know about any of this because they are the ones who look to leaders to tell them what to think, or they don’t care because what’s a few broken eggs for the sake of “community security?” All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.
And since I’ve given myself this segue, I would hazard to guess that most gun owners in Virginia would give up their bolt action deer hunting rifles before they would give up their AR-15s. The ultimate threat against which arms are necessary is the state itself, not a deer or feral hog. Gun owners aren’t revolting because they are afraid they won’t be able to take a deer this season. Gun-free counties have a horrible record on liberties, a fact of history that probably doesn’t interest the editorial board of The Washington Post.
Finally, while unstated (or perhaps understated), notice the worship of the back-robed tyrants. While it would be obscene to the board to deprive someone of life and liberty by, let’s imagine, executing someone named David on every other Friday for the purpose of bread and circuses, it’s not obscene at all to the board to murder 60 million unborn infants, or to throw a Sheriff in prison because he refuses to violate his oath of office to uphold and defend the constitution.
Because judges. Statists have no higher law than judges who can say with a straight face that the law doesn’t really say what it most obviously does say. It’s a priesthood of the highest order, those men and women who can absolve every sin, dictate imprisonment, and tell you the difference between right and wrong.
And thus, I suspect most Virginians won’t ever give up their AR-15s. At least they didn’t comply in Connecticut and New York (with AR-15 and magazine bans), and so it isn’t clear what sort of mental gymnastics would make the editorial board believe that folks in Abingdon, Damascus, or Franklin County would comply with any new firearms laws.
If they believe that, they need to visit those places and ask some “peasants.”
|
|
On December 2, 2019 at 7:38 am, Quietus said:
Mischief makers? They again show their hand. That word choice is out of Uncle Joe’s playbook. Next up, they’ll be talking about wreckers.
Bottom line for the WaPo: sanctuaries are for us and not for you. Go lay down by your dish, we’ll tell you what you’re supposed to think.
On December 2, 2019 at 8:02 am, Mark Matis said:
Bezos owns them. Why pretend to be surprised?
But they’re fine with sanctuary cities and states for illegal alien terrorists!
On December 2, 2019 at 8:32 am, mike said:
Unbelievable.They somehow managed to ignore including the illegal alien sactuaries in thier condemnation. The glaring feature of this omission is that the IA sanctuaries aid and abett existing criminals who committed actual crimes. The 2A sanctuaries merely attempt to protect to law abiding from legislation that has the color of law, yet conflicts clearly with the Constitution.
The left of course loves to ignore the law when they dislike it. Hell, it enshrines civil disobediance in service to leftist causes. A few historic American examples;
John Brown- Abolitionist, vigilantist , mischief-maker who took it upon himself to raid federal arsenals in order to arm slaves and murder the white population in the American South. Failed in his immediate aim and was executed, triggered the Confederate Independence movement and the resultant Federal war to destroy that nation. Glorified in song by Federal troops waging that war and is still glorified today my marxist militia operating nationwide as a “gun club”.
Harriett Tubman- Escaped slave , abolitionist, mischief-maker, smuggler, who played an exaggerated role in the so called “Underground Railroad” slave escape network prior to Lincoln’s War. Her criminal, woman, negro status give her such high standing with our modern marxists that they plan to enshrine her on the $20 Federal Reserve Script Note in place of Andrew Jackson.
Henry David Thoreau- Shiftless, lazy, over collegiated, abolitionist, woodland hobo, and mischief-maker. Well known for burning 300 acres of forest in Concord Massachusetts through his negligence and for his mystical trancendentalist scriblings to include the long essay “Civil Disobedience”, which is a moralization and blueprint for ignoring laws one does not agree with. He is held in such high regard by the left that his “works” are considered pillars of American literature and are required texts on every American university.
Once again the enemy has seperate rules for themselves. I wonder why anyone would read or care about what this fishwrap “thinks” anyway.
On December 2, 2019 at 9:05 am, mobius said:
Just a fad. I sure it will pass.
On December 2, 2019 at 9:29 am, Ed said:
Two articles on the forthcoming SCOTUS case:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/scotus-takes-gun-case-that-could-decimate-gun-control-laws-left-wing-activists-begin-to-panic
https://noqreport.com/2019/12/01/nyc-gun-case-must-proceed-scotus-even-law-repealed/
On December 2, 2019 at 10:49 am, Mike said:
“Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg, an extreme anti-gun activist who has pumped tens of millions of dollars to anti-gun activists and politicians, tweeted: “The NRA’s latest effort to undermine public safety may be its most absurd yet – and its most dangerous. The Supreme Court must side with the millions of Americans fighting for gun safety and send the NRA packing.”
Hey Bloomberg, the SCOTUS must side with the Constitution and not your drooling, fighting, urban savages. Do you really think the Supreme Court is obligated to make rulings based upon the alleged views of some mob?
On December 2, 2019 at 11:40 am, Hawk As Weapon said:
If you’re not already in honey badger last rat standing mode then you have already lost.
May the suburban soccer moms enjoy the enrichment and judging by the for sale signs going up everywhere it looks like they don’t like the improvementation that they voted for.
On December 2, 2019 at 12:44 pm, MTHead said:
Hubris, that’s the tell. Act accordingly.
On December 2, 2019 at 8:49 pm, Dave said:
Its not complicated and the details of the gun banner argument don’t need to be the truth. They see people are waking up and opposing the socialists. They know they are headed for a real fight.. They are scared and are saying whatever they need to say to try to marginalize and dehumanize their opposition.
On December 2, 2019 at 10:49 pm, The Wretched Dog said:
A concise, yet comprehensive fisk.
Well done, Sir!
TWD
On December 3, 2019 at 12:53 am, Tkdkerry said:
“Mischief makers” sounds an awful lot like “hooligans.” Hmmm… now where do we remember that from?
On December 3, 2019 at 1:27 am, Fergus Boon said:
Federal law has two laws against those who would deny anyone the exercise of their 10th amendment rights. Clearly this is an outright attack on the 2nd amendment and those advocating it should be prosecuted under both these laws. Soros and his people want to destroy this country and denying us our rights is fundamental to establishing a Marxist state.
On December 4, 2019 at 12:19 am, Henry said:
“Federal law has two laws against those who would deny anyone the exercise of their 10th amendment rights.”
Yes, but they’ve made it abundantly clear that those laws are for THEM to invoke, never for YOU to invoke. Absolutely obvious from the history of both types of attempts.