The Antigun Movement’s Bridge Too Far
By William A. Levinson
Overextension is a classic way to snatch catastrophic defeat from the jaws of victory. Examples include Napoleon’s invasion of Russia, Hitler’s decision to start a war with Russia before he finished his war with Britain, and Operation Market Garden. The latter debacle was the origin of the phrase, “A bridge too far.”
Overextension is often the result of hubris, the delusion of invincibility as exemplified by Napoleon and Hitler. The enemies of the Bill of Rights have similarly assumed they could exploit the blood of the murder victims to revive an agenda that had been put down hard in 2000, but their resulting hubris yielded at least three irrevocably self-damning statements that should turn their opportunity into a catastrophe.
This will not, however, happen by itself. If this material stays at American Thinker and on the referenced Web sites, it will do little good. We need to spread it as widely as possible via letters to the editor, personal contacts, and talk radio. We also need to use it to remind our Senators and Members of Congress that gun control is why Democrats lose elections.
Governor Ed Rendell: “The Good Thing About Newton…”
The ghoulish eagerness with which the enemies of the Second Amendment rushed to exploit the Sandy Hook shooting victims for political gain is a perfect example of Joseph Goebbels’ advice, “Arguments must therefore be crude, clear and forcible, and appeal to emotions and instincts, not the intellect.” The enemy strategy is to use children as human shields to do exactly that: perpetrate a rush to judgment before rational discussion can even begin. Henry Ford said of similar practices that drew the United States into the First World War,
There has been too much of this kind of psychological crime committed in the world these past few years — the crime of bringing men to act from the highest and sincerest motives of self-sacrifice, and then using that high spirit for the lowest purposes.
Governor Rendell proved himself a living example of this statement in his interview with MSNBC:
“…the good thing about Newtown is, it was so horrific that I think it galvanized Americans to a point where the intensity on our side is going to match the intensity on their side.”
“The good thing about Newtown” is apparently that Adam Lanza killed 26 innocent people instead of the two who were murdered by school shooter Luke Woodham. If an armed teacher or staff member had stopped Lanza the way Assistant Principal Joel Myrick stopped Woodham — with a .45 Automatic Colt Pistol — Sandy Hook would not have been sufficiently horrific to appeal to emotions and instincts as opposed to the intellect.
Prime Minister John Howard: Australia “Correctly” has no Bill of Rights
Former Australian Prime Minister John Howard wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times that includes a quote that our side can use to discredit Barack Obama, Dianne Feinstein, Andrew Cuomo, Michael Bloomberg, and their allies as self-declared enemies of the Bill of Rights.
Australia, correctly in my view, does not have a Bill of Rights, so our legislatures have more say than America’s over many issues of individual rights, and our courts have less control. Also, we have no constitutional right to bear arms. (After all, the British granted us nationhood peacefully; the United States had to fight for it.)
Good; we now have it on record that a prominent enemy of the Second Amendment is glad his country has no Bill of Rights. Prime Minister Howard’s admission that the U.S. had to fight for independence also is helpful, because Great Britain’s violations of what is now the Bill of Rights were among the principal causes of the War of Independence. The Declaration of Independence cites specific examples such as quartering soldiers in people’s houses (now proscribed by the Third Amendment) and denial of due process (prohibited by the Fifth Amendment). As for the effectiveness of Mr. Howard’s “assault weapon” ban, the results speak for themselves.
Even Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:
• In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
• Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
• Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
The reference adds that an Australian woman is three times as likely as an American one to be a rape victim. This makes John Howard a quack and a charlatan, and his snake oil miracle elixir has already proven worse than ineffective in his own country. We must let this fact, along with his statement that he is glad Australia has no Bill of Rights, speak for the entire anti-Second Amendment movement.
Governor Andrew Cuomo: “No One Needs 10 Bullets to Kill a Deer”
Governor Cuomo, whose dishonesty is a matter of record, is nonetheless 100 percent right about this. I would go even further; a hunter who can’t kill his prospective meal humanely with only one bullet probably shouldn’t take the shot at all. The Second Amendment is not, however, about shooting deer; it is about shooting violent human aggressors. The less educated elements of our society could plead ignorance of this aspect of basic high school civics, but Mr. Cuomo is an attorney. We should therefore challenge him to say in his capacity as an attorney, i.e. as legal advice, that the Second Amendment’s purpose is to protect the right to hunt. This would, of course, be unprofessional conduct, malpractice, or both if he actually did it. The same goes for Barack Obama, except for the fact that his law license is inactive.
We can also call Cuomo out by asking publicly whether he believes ordinary citizens have the basic natural right of self-defense. If they do, they have a legitimate need for the same kind of weapons that are available to police officers. If a police officer or a civilian has to use a firearm for any non-sporting reason, he or she must use it for exactly the same application: self-protection against one or more violent individuals. Thomas Sowell explains this very eloquently and persuasively. Force Cuomo to corner himself like a rat by saying that he doesn’t recognize the right of ordinary citizens to defend themselves from violent crime.
The enemy’s openly-expressed gratification over the deaths of innocent teachers and children at Sandy Hook has transformed itself into hubris, and hubris has led the enemy across several bridges too far. It is therefore time to counterattack decisively in what Carl von Clausewitz called the Hauptschlacht: the decisive battle of annihilation that ends forever the enemy’s ability to wage further aggression. We will make 2013 the year in which gun control becomes about as popular as slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, and similar practices that have been relegated to the ash heap of history. 2014 is when we remind every Member of Congress who supported this agenda that gun control is why Democrats lose elections.
William A. Levinson, P.E. is the author of several books on business management including content on organizational psychology, as well as manufacturing productivity and quality.