The Mainstreaming of Gun Rights

 

Screen Shot 2015-06-19 at 1.33.08 PMYou’ll be forgiven for not appreciating the extent to which gun-rights advocates have enjoyed success comparable to that of same-sex marriage and marijuana decriminalization advocates over the past decade.

With each mass shooting — most recently the racist massacre in Charleston – progressives show a mix of arrogance and disdain: arrogance aboout their own virtue and disdainful of Americans’ exceptional attitude toward guns. But everyone involved knows that when the gun grabbers’ moment in the sun passes, it’s the gun nuts who eventually carry the day.

And they always do.

A quick google of “sweeping gun legislation” and you might be surprised how many links lead to stories of state legislatures – ahem – liberalizing access to guns.

Guns are increasingly seen for what they are: cool. According to Glenn Reynolds, spirits are higher than they’ve been in 20 years among self-described gun nuts. All fifty states have passed laws allowing qualified individuals to carry certain concealed firearms in public, either without a permit or after obtaining a permit from a designated government authority.

Increasingly, people like actor Vince Vaughn and playwright David Mamet are asking, as the latter asks in his book The Secret Knowledge, why shouldn’t we go the same lengths to protect our schoolchildren that Manhattan jewellery stores go to as a matter of routine to protect their treasure?

Advocates of widespread and stricter gun control laws are expressing the same “I can’t believe we’re actually having this debate” sentiment that social conservatives have expressed in the marriage and marijuana debates. Unthinkable to most twenty years ago, today the notion of arming every school principle in America with a shotgun and training in its use and safekeeping sounds like darned-good common sense.

Social conservatives fret over losing ground on marriage and marijuana –  New Jersey governor Christie having called the latter a gateway drug to carbs (just kidding). This should not prevent them from learning what they can from the major conservo-tarian victory for liberty and public safety.

Published in Guns
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 31 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Kate Braestrup Member
    Kate Braestrup
    @GrannyDude

    Eeyore:

    Kate Braestrup:My own beloved relative has been hospitalized twice for psychosis, is on multiple medications to control auditory and visual hallucinations and delusions, and she could walk into a gun store today and buy a weapon, no problem.

    Were those hospitalizations voluntary? Federal firearms regulations deem a person ineligible for firearms purchase if

    “The person has been adjudicated mentally defective or has been committed to a mental institution. To be prohibiting, a commitment to a mental institution must be involuntary and it must result in the person being committed to either inpatient or out-patient treatment”

    Once that has happened, the person will pop up in the NICS check as prohibited.

    Yes—as with most mentally ill people, the hospitalizations were voluntary. Insofar as a delusional person can understand what it means to sign a form that says “yes, I agree to be hospitalized.” For obvious (don’t trust the gummint) reasons, it’s actually fairly difficult to effect an involuntary hospitalization, particularly one of any duration.

    • #31
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.