Coupling with what I said yesterday, David sent me this commentary. I must have missed this when it came out. That’s my mistake.
The “enforce exiting gun laws” faction of gun owners are the loudest objectors, evidently unaware that their position is ideologically no different than a Revolutionary era colonial demanding to enforce exiting Intolerable Acts. The hard truths no one wants to admit are that “gun control” laws don’t work – whether they’re favored by Everytown or by NRA, and that anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted without a custodian.
It’s not a matter of “Should felons have guns?” That’s the wrong question. Try “Should those proven violent and predatory have access to the rest of us?”
Ditto with “Should illegal aliens have guns?”
Of course, all human beings are entitled to unalienable rights. And the Supreme Court has acknowledged, in the Heller case, and earlier, in Cruikshank, “The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.’ As we said in United States v. Cruikshank… ‘[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.’”
But again, it’s the wrong question. What should be asked is “Why is a known illegal alien allowed to remain in the United States instead of being deported?”
[ … ]
At this writing, more, including an inordinate number of military-aged males of not just Mexican or Central American origin, but from China, and from hostile Islamic states, are adding to their unvetted numbers already here while our government, consented to under the premise that it would “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,” offers the lawbreakers incentives and rewards to embed themselves (and increase political power through apportionment) throughout the Republic.
It’s hardly unreasonable to conclude the “newcomers” (we aren’t supposed to call them “illegals” anymore) represent the equivalent of a standing foreign army, many with agendas directed by brutal criminal cartels and by bellicose powers like China, Russia, and Iran.
The Framers never intended to protect the right of invaders to keep and bear arms, but again, that’s the wrong issue. We need to instead ask ourselves “Who does it benefit to have Second Amendment advocates arguing over acceptable infringements while they ignore the damn elephant in the room?”
This issue all about avoiding confusion, thinking deeper than a sophomoric level of understanding, and focusing on the root questions. It’s easy to get distracted.
Do try not to get distracted. When you get distracted, it makes you look like a simpleton.
To understand if your view is perhaps a bit outlandish and should be unpersuasive – even to yourself – always use hyperbole. Ask yourself the hard questions to see just exactly how far this would go.
Pose questions to yourself such as “Should we open the borders to invading armies and in fact arm them so that we can claim that the FedGov isn’t infringing upon the RKBA?” “Should we invite in immigrants who would predominantly undermine our core rights, including the RKBA?” “Should we terraform the culture such that we couple a welfare state with illegal immigrants, effectively destroying the medical care system in the country?” [Ask me how I know that immigrants are destroying the medical system in the country – go ahead, ask me].
“The grant of citizenship is a transfer of political power.” Thinking through the implications of that might do everyone some good.
