Now that The New York Times has come out of the gun confiscation closet, other members of the assault media are lining up. Over at newrepublic.com, Phoebe Maltz Bovy [above] has added her voice to those calling for civilian disarmament with an article headlined It’s Time to Ban Guns. Yes, All of Them. Whereas the Times only alluded to “certain kinds of weapons” for their gun grabbing aspirations, Ms. Bovy’s going full, well, you know. Like this . . .
Ban guns. All guns. Get rid of guns in homes, and on the streets, and, as much as possible, on police. Not just because of San Bernardino, or whichever mass shooting may pop up next, but also not not because of those. Don’t sort the population into those who might do something evil or foolish or self-destructive with a gun and those who surely will not. As if this could be known—as if it could be assessed without massively violating civil liberties and stigmatizing the mentally ill. Ban guns! Not just gun violence. Not just certain guns. Not just already-technically-illegal guns. All of them.
It doesn’t get any plainer than that, folks. Do we need to go into Ms. Bovy’s “logic” on the subject? I guess so. The American ex-pat (‘natch) offers an “argument” that’s not your bog-standard “do it for the children” proposition. She reckons extremism in defense of tyranny is no sin.
I say this not to win some sort of ideological purity contest, but because banning gunsurgently needs to become a rhetorical and conceptual possibility. The national conversation needs to shift from one extreme—an acceptance, ranging from complacent to enthusiastic, of an individual right to own guns—to another, which requires people who are not politicians to speak their minds. And this will only happen if the Americans who are quietly convinced that guns are terrible speak out . . .
On the pro-gun-control side of things, there’s far too much timidity. What’s needed to stop all gun violence is a vocal ban guns contingent. Getting bogged down in discussions of what’s feasible is keeps what needs to happen—no more guns—from entering the realm of possibility. Public opinion needs to shift. The no-guns stance needs to be an identifiable place on the spectrum, embraced unapologetically, if it’s to be reckoned with.
I couldn’t agree more! The fact that the “sensible gun safety laws” folks are outing themselves as unapologetic confiscationists is a sea change. The change in discourse allows informed Americans to choose sides, without disingenuous arguments about protecting hunting or “allowing” citizens to own certain types/numbers/calibers of firearms in certain situations, maybe. Now, let’s see what happens….
[h/t BC]