What the gun control debate sounds like to shooters, in a context most other people can understand: Say it’s become “known” that many drunk driving fatalities are caused by drunk drivers who drank whiskey.
Temperance advocates would really prefer to ban all alcohol. They frequently and not without merit point to all the social problems that alcohol abuse contributes to, especially when there’s high-profile fatalities. But they don’t really have the political power to enact sweeping restrictions.
Instead they latch onto the idea of banning any alcohol that is brown, because whiskey is brown, and at least it’s something. The distillers switch production to clear liquors, which still gets you just as sloshed as the brown stuff, and the ban accomplishes almost nothing except pissing off whiskey drinkers, the vast majority of whom aren’t problem drinkers. The temperance people cry foul, scream “loophole,” and demand clear liquors be banned too, hoping that those absinthe drinkers over there won’t really care if the vodka drinkers get it. The temperance folks make repeated public assurances that absinthe aficionados should fear not, since they don’t really intend to target green drink, and likewise assure beer drinkers they are fine with yellow drink. But when they think they can, they’ve pushed for limits of 5% on alcohol content of all drinks.
That’s essentially what this all looks like to those of us, using the analogy, who might be whiskey enthusiasts, but who aren’t alcoholics and don’t drive drunk. We tolerate a lot of social harm in this context because most people drink. There’s an understanding that prohibition wasn’t all that successful, and that it’s not right to punish people as a whole because some misuse it. Transfer that to the gun context, and suddenly prohibition is workable, and it’s fine to blame and punish millions of gun owners and shooters for the actions of people who misuse them.
13 thoughts on “Don’t Ban the Brown Drink!”
And an important reminder to those in today’s gun control movement is that within Sebastian’s lifetime, they were pushing a ban on the clear drink in the form of sweeping handgun bans in the 1970s. In Massachusetts, they took it to the ballot and lost there. They told us then that they wouldn’t ever touch the brown drink (rifles) because abuse that leads to death was so incredibly low. It still is today, but now they want the brown drink that they promised they would leave their hands off if we would only let them ban the clear drink. It’s like there’s a reason for the distrust or something…
That’s a really good analogy. I’m going to steal it. haha.
Part of the issue is that only gun owners actually understand the guns being used and current law. The other issue is that some just see us as “evil” and cannot even talk to us civilly.
To be fair, I’ve seen some very hateful words come out of the mouths of gun owners, too.
I think embracing the idea and message that if someone is overly emotional – in either direction – to the point where they can’t engage without assuming the absolute worst in people then I think we need to encourage those folks to step back to process their emotions first and come back to the table to discuss policy when they have calmed down. I’ve seen some real nastiness from both sides and some very dehumanizing language, which I suspect will eventually – if it doesn’t already – play a role in how kids and teens develop a view of the world. I read a very interesting piece by a social worker who said she’s seen an increase in the ability for kids to completely disconnect the people they are raging against from humanity in general. They don’t see the concept that they can be overwhelmingly angry at an adult’s actions, but know that the adult still loves or cares for them as a person. So turning that rage into violence isn’t such a leap to them. Now her context was more to do with physical violence and more common situations fueled by divorce, but the examples she was using of the type of rhetoric the kids are learning from the adults in their lives wasn’t very different from what I’ve seen happening in politics right now. Kids are sponges and political sites are one area almost never blocked even by parental controls, so it really struck me that what we write off as “being an a****** on the internet,” they may see as a lesson in how adults behave.
Oh, and when you steal the really great analogy, Sebastian pointed out to me when I was discussing my response to him that I failed to consider that the example of a handgun ban is actually more rooted in function and use rather than just cosmetic features. So don’t steal my addition without revision. :)
Oh absolutely. I think that hurts our cause. We should always remain civil even if they can’t.
I love that point about if somebody is too emotional asking them to step back and think. I ran into that and that’s what I should have told them instead of engaging.
Our society is geared toward the disconnect. Its always sort of been like that, but usually only for wars. Now its the political opponents. You see it with the whole “blood on your hands” and “child murderers”. Nobody is willing to engage, and instead just throw insults back and forth. We get nowhere with that. Of course, places like Twitter make that really easy. A drive by insult culture.
Haha- that’s a good point!
Being civil and restrained hasn’t worked to roll back or even slow down the ProgSoc assault on our nation and our freeedoms. While I agree that internet arguing is a spectator sport, we must never shoot right. ProgSocs call for people’s deaths constantly, and this isn’t new behavior. It chills our speech, and in some cases, their use of SWATting actually kills.
Turnabout is fair play. Goose, meet gander. Pot, meet kettle. But remember the golden rules – never start the fight, and he who has the gold makes the rules.
Guns are forever linked to alcohol Prohibition, not just in concept but in history and process. It is no coincidence that the 21st amendment passed in December of 1933 and the National Firearms Act in January of 1934, both administered by the Department of Treasury.
The most notable thing about the ban on alcohol, from today’s perspective, is that they understood in 1920 that such a thing would be unconstitutional unless the constitution itself was first altered. Nowadays almost nothing requires a constitutional amendment because the constitution is now “living” (meaning that it is dead).
In short; this is no longer America. America, such as it ever existed, ended over 100 years ago. It never did exist as far as fulfilling its promise, but the concept of America was abandoned over 100 years ago. Today hardly anyone understands it, much less embraces it. Today the socialists believe that they’re advocating for “human rights” and for “justice”.
I think alcohol is an illuminating analogy. Rifles, of any sort, kill around 300 Americans every year. Alcohol kills around 3000 through drunk driving and nearly 80,000 through people just drinking themselves to death. This is in addition to the violence, sexual assault and social dysfunction alcohol fuels. Yet, the same people who will characterize gun owners as sociopaths will slurp down cocktails with their friends with nary a twinge of guilt or inkling dissonance.
What you are seeing from the left is not the result of a principled position regarding individual liberty and societal cost. They are clearly indifferent to activities with high societal costs (as long as they are the domain of the right sort of people, with the right sort of opinions). What you are seeing is self serving opportunism and virtue signalling. This is fueled, in no small part, by their hatred of anyone who is opposed to their clearly enlightened and superior views.
The thing that concerns me most is so many left-wingera and non-gun-owners are unwilling or incapable of thinking on this issue. The anti-gunners make so many false statements that, as Goebbels claimed, the apathetic majority will eventually believe them. For example:
If you read the whole CNS News article linked below on CNN’s interview with two Parkland students, you will discover these students are completely devoid of knowledge, indeed, of reality itself, and proclaiming a left-wing fantasy that the CNN stooge is only too happy to support with her own lies. If these highlights excerpted below are typical of the average public school student in America, the future of our liberty is in deep kimchi!
(CNSNews.com) – The FBI failed to investigate warnings about the Florida school shooter, but never mind that. And the National Rifle Association has no control over school shootings, but never mind that, either.
Two newly minted gun control activists from Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida are defending the FBI, while demanding that NRA “child murderers” dismantle and disband. And they have declined an invitation to discuss their concerns with President Donald Trump, whom they call “disgusting.”
With trepidation, Arnie
The thing that concerns me most is so many left-wingers and non-gun-owners are unwilling or incapable of thinking on this issue. The anti-gunners make so many false statements that, as Goebbels claimed, the apathetic majority will eventually believe them. For example:
If you read the whole CNS News article linked below on CNNâ€™s interview with two Parkland students, you will discover these students are completely devoid of knowledge, indeed, of reality itself, and proclaiming a left-wing fantasy that the CNN stooge is only too happy to support with her own lies. If these highlights excerpted below are typical of the average public school student in America, the future of our liberty is in deep kimchi!
(CNSNews.com) â€“ The FBI failed to investigate warnings about the Florida school shooter, but never mind that. And the National Rifle Association has no control over school shootings, but never mind that, either.
Two newly minted gun control activists from Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida are defending the FBI, while demanding that NRA â€œchild murderersâ€ dismantle and disband. And they have declined an invitation to discuss their concerns with President Donald Trump, whom they call â€œdisgusting.â€
With trepidation, Arnie
*Looks at bottles of white whiskey and white rum in liquor cabinet*
I guess those would be the equivalent of “California stocks” on an AR.
The anti-gunners are not interested in a conversation. The best thing to do, as in every diatribe by lefties, is laugh in their faces and walk away.
True, dat. My wife and I had a conversation with a Manhattan attorney, who proceeded to lecture us on how easy it is to buy “an assault rifle” at a gun show. “You ever bought one?” . No. Darling Wife JUST had, two weeks previously. She explained NICS check, 4473, etcetera to him. His response: “you’re wrong.”
yep she was wrong about what, in fact, she had just done, the other day. He was right about something he had, in fact, never done. Likely because “New York City”, “The Times”, or some such malarkey.
Comments are closed.