If They Mean It...

     “The more you tighten your grip, the more systems will slip through your fingers.” – a character in some obscure movie or other

     Certain instances of repression have the perverse consequence – perverse from the standpoint of the repressors, that is – of causing the thing targeted for repression to increase.

     Perhaps the best known example of this phenomenon is religious repression. Historically, this has had consequences entirely opposite to what the repressors intended. Christianity, for example, benefited hugely from the Roman Empire’s attempts to stamp it out. Indeed, Christianity’s growth rate after Emperor Constantine legitimized it actually declined slightly. History does not record whether Constantine intended any such thing.

     We also have the examples of alcohol Prohibition and the War on Drugs. Neither of those nominally public-spirited campaigns had the consequences promised for them. Indeed, there is some evidence that the most significant backer of each of those measures was organized crime, whose masters intuited – correctly – that products for which there’s so large a demand cannot be kept out of the demanders’ hands for long.

     Another example, not as well known, is the attempt to repress weapons ownership by law. This is something Americans have seen at first hand, though the anti-gun flacksters and organizers would prefer not to admit to it.

     When New York State’s legislature passed the Sullivan Act, it was estimated that no more than 5% of New Yorkers went about their daily business with a firearm to hand. Today, a considerably greater percentage of New Yorkers go armed through their days. Most of them aren’t legally armed...but they’re armed. The police know it. Moreover, the police aren’t all that unhappy about it; it gives them a reason to harass anyone whom they can be reasonably sure is carrying a weapon.

     (Is it necessary to mention Chicago in this context?)

     From the above examples, I predict that the recent eruption of yet another spate of anti-gun “protests,” this time the vanguard being composed of children, will not have the effects for which the anti-gun forces hope. Americans are too widely aware that taking the means of self-defense away from the law-abiding citizen will not dampen crime rates in the slightest. Indeed, in some cases we might see the expansion of firearms rights, as the counteractions to the “protests” gain steam and hard information about the uses of privately owned firearms in defense of life and property is publicized.

     Are the funders and organizers of the anti-gun “protests” aware of that possible result? Perhaps. Should it materialize, would they change their strategy? Probably not – but not because they’d be happy about it.

     It would be just one more demonstration of the total failure – theoretical and practical – of the totalitarian Left.

---

     Perhaps the most thoroughly frustrated persons involved in anti-gun activism are its drum-beaters in the media professions. Courtesy of the esteemed Bookworm, we have the following example:

     Bookworm provides the following observation:

     Bevin also very politely lets those viewing the video know that, in response to his calm, organized, factual response, the woman who asked the question, who is off-camera, is smirking and rolling her eyes. The video therefore encapsulates not just the strong moral and intellectual argument behind simultaneously supporting the Second Amendment and child welfare, but also the lack of good faith and good grace coming even from those Leftists who purport to be temperate and reasoned.

     Indeed. Media types are roughly 90% politically on the Left, and are as violently opposed to private firearms ownership as anyone among its non-media “activists.” Why? Good question, especially considering how many of them live in closely secured buildings and compounds guarded by men with guns. But there it is.

     One can vent about the hypocrisy of it as much as one pleases, just as one can vent about the hypocrisy of anti-gun politicians who go everywhere accompanied by armed bodyguards. No amount of hypocrisy-shouting has made a difference to this point. I doubt it will make one any time soon.

     I keep coming back to the disclosure of Dr. Floyd Ferris:

"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against -- then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can be neither observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted -- and you create a nation of law-breakers -- and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." [Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged]

     To make private citizens feel both guilty and vulnerable is the ultimate prize for the power-monger. Whether or not the power-mongers are conscious of it doesn’t matter, for the laws of political dynamics will automatically elevate those whose actions best conform to them.

     The grand champions of the political game have always known this...and they’ve always meant it.

     Food for thought, especially as you prepare to enter a voting booth.