John Hinderocker posted an article on Powerline on September 3 called “Some Comments on Guns,” in which he praises an earlier column posted by Paul Mirengoff called “A Conservative Plan to Reduce Shootings and Other Homicides.”
Good, we agree there are conservative ways to handle the problem. But then Hinderocker loses his mind and endorses red flag laws.
Plainly, he’s never been up close and personal with acrimonious divorce cases; with law enforcement’s arbitrary denials of gun permits; with petty bureaucrats lording over groundlings; with entitled leftists entrenched in the deep bureaucracy of every local government office; with judges who think they’re God and you’re dirt because you hold the wrong political opinions, voted for the wrong political party, are a white male caught up in the liberal feminist system. I confidently predict red flag laws will be administered exactly the same as Orders for Protection, handed out like Kleenex, because judges will be terrified that someone will do something stupid and they will get blamed for it. If Hinderocker had experience with that system, he’d be scared spitless of giving those people the power to disarm him, without a hearing, based on rumor and gossip.
I was tempted to argue reductio ad absurdum: Most Methodists are white people. Many Methodist congregations condemn certain sex acts. Many Methodists also own guns. Clearly, Methodists are a white supremacist hate group and a danger to historically oppressed victim groups. Society must ban Methodism to protect those potential victims. Just a pilot project, to test it out and see how well it works to reduce crime. We can move on to Lutherans later. Absurd, right? And plainly unconstitutional.
Except today’s atheist liberal left wouldn’t think the argument is absurd, they would jump on it with enthusiasm. But they wouldn’t want the Lutherans next, they’d want the Catholics next, because they’re even bigger haters. Banning religion would be right up their alley. How can you argue that your rights are entitled to Constitutional protection, when the people you’re trying to convince don’t believe the Constitution should protect you or your rights?
There’s a reason the Second Amendment doesn’t say ” the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall only be infringed a little.”
Joe Doakes
There is a temptation among some conservatives who have experience with big negotiations to think that this is something where a rational agreement can be reached.
Not with our opponents, it can’t.
“I’ll be taking the kids to my mother’s for Christmas.”
“What? You had Christmas last year, our agreement clearly states we trade holidays.”
“Do you want to keep your shotgun?”
I can’t say I’m really surprised by this revelation about Powerline. They’re good guys with good intentions who are trying to come to grips with the reality of real leftist politics. Those behaviors and activities that used to be hidden under a rock until Trump pushed it away.
Believing that those “red flag” laws would be intelligently formed, capably implemented, and neutrally executed is just about par for the course.
But surely there is a rational compromise between us, who want nobody killed, and them, who want to kill us all? Maybe if they’re allowed to just kill half of us? Remember it takes two sides to make a peace, but only one side to make a war.
Essentially, until Conceal and Carry laws were passed here in MN, the Left and the Govt treated gun ownership as a Red Flag.