Michael Ejercito registered as concise, witty, sharp and unmerciful a rebuttal of the knee-jerk anti-gun position’s multiple dishonesties, deceits and distortions as I have ever seen. I am debating whether to post the whole thing on Facebook. It may be unethical to make one’s friend’s heads explode, even heads that deserve it.
Here is his epic Comment of the Day on the post, Morning Ethics Warm-Up, 2/15/18: Money, Massacres, Mudd And More:
– These people claim that we “do nothing” regarding murder. How then, are murderers in prison? Is it just sheer coincidence that they are serving life sentences or on death row? If not, why is punishing murderers not considered “doing something”?
– “This happens nowhere else”. Does “nowhere else” include Brazil, Jamaica, Mexico, and South Africa?
– These people claim that no one is talking about banning guns. How then, did guns get banned in Chicago, Illinois, and Washington, D.C.? How did guns get banned in South Carolina in 1902 if no one ever talked about banning guns?
– These people claim to want “sensible” gun legislation. Why did none of them call for repealing the handgun bans in Chicago and Washington? Or for laws authorizing police to arbitrarily deny permits to carry firearms, even if the applicant meets all objective statutory criteria?
– Washington, D.C. had a handgun ban in 1976. Were the shootings of Ronald Reagan and James Brady hoaxes? How would such a thing be possible if it was as difficult for John Hinckley to obtain a firearm as it was for Marion Barry to obtain cocaine?
– These people say that state-level bans do not work because people simply smuggle guns from outside the jurisdiction, and we need national laws. We have national laws on marijuana, and marijuana is smuggled from outside the United States. In order for gun control laws to work, must the United States conquer the whole world? How many servicemen would be willing to fight in a war of conquest for the purpose of disarming Americans at home? How many foreign children would have to be killed to accomplish that objective?
– Regarding universal background checks, how do they expect the police to catch a crack dealer selling firearms without running background checks if the police can not catch him for selling crack?
– Kamala Harris, who at the time was the California Attorney General, said “Local law enforcement must be able to use their discretion to determine who can carry a concealed weapon” If so, why should not county clerks like Kim Davis be able to use their discretion to determine who can marry?
– The United States of America already has the highest rate of imprisonment per capita in the world. How many more prisons would have to be built to accommodate a new population of prisoners who had not even been accused of hurting anyone?
– The Second Amendment is not the only constitutional provision with adverse public safety implication. While no murder conviction was ever thrown out on Second Amendment grounds, murder convictions have been thrown out on Fourth and Fifth and Sixth Amendment grounds. If these amendments were repealed (or ignored), it would be easier to punish criminals? How many lives would be saved? What would be the price for those lives?
– More people are killed by black violence than mass shootings. What must be done about blacks? Are the anti-gun violence people willing to abrogate Constitutional protections to go after blacks? If not, what would stop a state that had already abrogated the Constitution regarding the right to keep and bear arms, from doing the same regarding black people?