So today we see news out of Deerfield Illinois: Village Bans Semi-Automatic Weapons, Residents Must Remove From Home Or Face Up To $1,000 Fines — Per Day The news was of course expounded in full trumpet appreciation by the dominant liberal media. Reading of the ordinance we wonder:
- What other of the Bill of Rights does the Deerfield City Council think do not apply to their residents?
- What would the ACLU do if Deerfield inhibited amendments 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 . . .?
- What Would Saul Alinsky Do?
Along the lines of the subject of selective appreciation for the Bill of Rights and the arguments of gun-banners, is it OK to ban a high-speed duplicating press because, well, a high-speed duplicator COULD be used to lie about a multiplicity of people? Lies can destroy fortunes, destroy reputations, destroy families, lead to suicide, violent death imposing confrontations and even war.
And what of protecting one’s rights against government? By the lights of those opposed to private gun ownership of semi-automatic weapons the government is responsible for safety as it sees safety, but who protects the people from government? Government as protector infantile fetishists logic would hold that because the government must address many citizens at once only it has the ethical standing to posses machinery of mass information (or disinformation) and that no individual citizen needs a high-speed duplicator because hand-written notes are weapons enough to protect and exercise one’s rights vis-a-vi the government.
After-all, the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were just handwritten notes. The framers had no contemplation of the high-speed printing we have today, why the rotary press was still 30 years from even being invented. By the logic of the gun-banners freedom of speech only protects unamplified individual voices, handwritten notes and single-paper fed printing presses because that is all the framers of the Constitution used and were aware of.
Commentary continues below, but a graphic conceptualization in- series first:*
Like Saul, what should John Q do?
Emulating Saul we thing John Q might think about identifying and singling out the Village of Deerfield for a peaceful responsive boycott to show displeasure and to seek redress through “direct action.” Two can play the liberal game.
Make them live by their rules. If it is OK to ban the exercise of a constitutional right then it is OK to exercise the right to freedom of assembly and not assemble there, so to speak, at least until the citizens there make the necessary changes they freely made. Sad to shun those in the confines of dear Deerfield who disagree with the actions of their government but they can exempt themselves by advertising their objection and support ofr the Second Amendment aka “virtue signaling”. . And those indifferent could use a little push. But then liberals break innocent eggs all the time to make their omelets.
And so if it is OK for the city leaders of city X to exercise their judgement as to what the citizens of city X may possess, or anyone visiting, then it is within the powers of the city leaders of other municipalities, cities Y, to rule that no municipal employees of “Y”may possess a credit card or cash advance issued by cities Y, or authority to obligate city Y to any product or service emanating from city X. Isn’t that what liberals do to other state entities they consider indifferent or opposed to basic human rights?
Individual decisions would of course be even more compelling especially if the reason is “telegraphed” to the leadership of Deerfield including the aforesaid’s Chamber of Commerce. That could be very effective, eliciting change and easy to do at the retail level, recognizing that the congestion of the area affords ample opportunity to find the same thing just a little ways down the road in another municipality, virtually across the street.
That is what Saul would do.
We would also commend to the city leadership of Deerfield that their already low crime community is not going to be safer as a result of their ban, more likely just the opposite, in both neighborhood and more comprehensive sociological terms. Here are the numbers:
Does Gun Control Reduce Murder? Let’s Run The Numbers Across The World
the question of whether reducing guns in a society will lead to fewer murders is a testable hypothesis . . . (read article for conclusion)
And because the dolts on the Deerfield city council who think the Second Amendment is an anachronism and though they think somehow human history and the will to government hegemony has ended, we suggest:
How Gun Ownership Protects Citizens From An Abusive Government
Much like the effect of one vote, one gun will not stop tyranny. But many together can enact change and protect citizens.
. . .
History provides many examples of an armed populace keeping its government in check. Peter Leeson, a professor of economics and law at George Mason University, contends that the ownership of longbows among non-nobles likely led to the Magna Carta’s final reissue. Once documents establishing universal rights bound the aristocrats and royals, politics became more stable and monarchs abused power less frequently. Society respected the rights of the lower classes much more broadly.
Stripping people of self-defense is not only a violation of rights, it spits in the face of America’s own beginnings. The American Revolution itself could not have happened without an armed populace. The U.S. Army was outgunned and often outmaneuvered, but Americans aren’t singing “God Save the Queen” before sporting events because individuals had the agency to protect themselves from an overbearing government.
Alas, such is both way too practical and principled thinking for the current likes of the Village of Deerfield.
R Mall
*Platen press actually not invented until well after Revolutionary war
