Harvard’s Everlasting Shame

Some think the admissions scandal currently in the news is a mortal blow to the importance of the Ivy League.
After listening to last night’s moronic “Westminster Town Hall” on MPR, featuring David Hogg – well, until I burned the radio out of my dashboard with a blowtorch – I’m pretty sure it’s the fact that Harvard invited him to attend.
Hogg’s address claimed the 2nd Amendment exists to protect “white supremacy”, and even linked it to “climate change” – further proof that Big Gun Control is entirely about logrolling the low-information, emotion-driven voter. He calls, naturally, for sweeping gun controls – and while polls show millennials are actually more libertarian on firearms than their elders, well, I’m pretty sure that’s why Big Left is funding Hogg and his fellow pocket fascists so heavily.
But let’s cut the crap, here.
If you agree with Hogg, and want to exploit hysteria to ban a class of firearms that are mechanically indistinguishable from about 2/3 of the firearms in circulation, and are actually used *less* frequently in crimes, per capita, than any other – or, what the heck, ban all guns, as Hogg pretty much demands – there’s really only one route.
You’ve got to repeal the 2nd Amendment.
That means getting a 2/3 majority of the House and Senate on board. Even the current US House with its thin Democrat majority and growing neo-socialist caucus isn’t getting anywhere close. The Senate won’t, and never will – for reasons we’ll see in the next paragraph.
But you’re not done yet!
At the same time, you’ve got to get the legislatures of 37 states to call for the repeal. So far, I’m counting California, Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware and Rhode Island, and maaaaaaaybe Illinois, Vermont, and even less likely Washington and Oregon. In the unlikely event they get every single one, that’s 11. The other 26 *will never happen*. And the battle over the issue would likely set in motion city-vs-outstate battles in NY, IL, WA, PA and OR that will make today’s red/blue divide look like a Mr. Rogers marathon, and perhaps even provide the final impetus for California to finally break up into 2-6 smaller states, 1-3 of which would likely vote “Molon Labe” (Kids, ask your friends’ gun-owning parents).
Think we’ve got tribalism today? You ain’t seen nothing yet.
So no. You’re not going to ban guns, or even broad classes of guns. Not legally.
Of course, your other option is to just forget about that pesky Constitution, and go do it anyway. Which *will* – no “maybe” about it – lead to a civil war, one that’ll make the last one look like the Women’s March.
“Hahah, Merg, that’s Treason!”, some will say (indeed, have said). Perhaps, but not in the way they think.
Some greet that notion with a cavalier brushoff. “We’ve got the nukes!” says Rep. Swalwell. Huh. Let that rattle around your head for a bit.
Others – as long as I can remember – respond “What, you think you’re going to fight a tank with a rifle?” Which betrays a serious misunderstanding, I think, of who the military actually are, and where they come from. Hint: largely, not the political class who are pushing this sort of resolution.
Take a deep breath and get real. Gun crime is down over the past 20 years by rates that, had they happened to cancer deaths or high school dropouts or DUIs would be considered modern day miracles.
Schools are 1/4 as dangerous as they were 25 years ago.
The US is NOT the most violent place in the world.
Stop being logrolled by emotional ninnies and the not-very-closeted authoritarians behind them, and get serious.

8 thoughts on “Harvard’s Everlasting Shame

  1. You’ve got to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

    No you don’t. All you have to do is get enough “Living Constitution” justices on the Supreme Court. That’s far, far easier.

  2. Any reference in regards to MPR/NPR will now be called Welfare radio by me, I heard it from Tom Bernard the other day and it fits perfectly. I suggest SiTD makes that policy change too.

  3. Regarding fighting tanks with portable weapons, it occurs to me that anyone who has read the histories of recent wars in Afghanistan, Syria, and Iraq would point out that yes, it can be done. Start with the fact that armored vehicles need to be fueled. Wars are won by boots on the ground.

    One might also consider that it’s telling that an Australian used weapons banned in his native country to non-military personnel and heavily restricted in his country of residence, both countries being islands, to do this. OK, exactly what are we going to do when we have neighbors with plentiful arms bazaars?

  4. “your other option is to just forget about that pesky Constitution, and go do it anyway. Which *will* – no “maybe” about it – lead to a civil war”

    This is not a thing that can happen… certainly not a chain of events the ignites a civil war over guns. An administration that orders some grade of ban & confiscation with no basis in law will get injuncted in the court, and law enforcement can’t enforce it.

  5. Someone wrote an interesting response to the comments by Sen Chris Murphy about banning AR-15s, yadda, yadda, yadda…

    Murphy is being correctly derided for saying this, but everyone misses one thing. The idiot thinks we can have gun control without border control. As if the same lanes used to traffic human beings and drugs across our borders couldn’t also be used to traffic guns.

  6. There will be no civil war.
    Look at history. The reason the last civil war happened is that there was no practical political solution to the problem of slavery. The reason the confederate states seceded was because they had enormous political power, but not enough to control the federal government. They knew that if they stayed in the union, slavery would be ended within a generation.
    If the confederate states had numbers on their side, they could have called a constitutional convention & amended the constitution to protect their odious institution.

  7. There will be no effort to repeal the 2nd Amendment. The elite do not want all guns banned because they want to have guns to protect themselves from the deplorables and their own rabble. They just don’t want anyone who doesn’t work for them to have guns. Think of it as an emerging aristocracy that understands the need to protect themselves from their subjects.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.