Why are so many liberal causes predicated on rhetorical goals that are impossible to achieve?
I’m not one to make light of mass shootings, and I shouldn’t have to say that I deplore violence. But that’s undoubtedly the charge that will be hurled at me when I say that I can’t stand the latest PSA from Everytown for Gun Safety.
Stop me if you’ve heard this before — some advocacy group rounds up a bunch of celebrities and does a quick-cut video of them all repeating the same mantra. In this case, it’s “WE. CAN. END. GUN. VIOLENCE.” Now forget for a moment the utter hypocrisy of Hollywood-types who make their living glorifying violence having a convenient attack of conscience. Even if it is utterly sincere, at this point my tolerance for this clichéd and futile dreck is such that I recommend having an airsickness bag handy before you watch this:
Okay, now that you’ve been subjected to that (I’m sorry), as a palate cleanser you should go ahead and watch this pitch perfect “Portlandia” parody and note how closely it tracks with the Everytown PSA. Finally, repeat after me: Stop trying to make ending gun violence happen. It’s not going to happen.
Willing To Listen For the record, I am fairly confident that given their druthers, Everytown for Gun Safety would implement ideas about restricting gun ownership that are unconstitutional and would abridge rights clearly spelled out by the Second Amendment. But just because I think they’re wrong about guns — and even suspect of their motives — that doesn’t mean I’m unwilling to listen to gun control advocates and try to find compromise. After all, I think there are some issues around the margins that could be fruitful places to begin a discussion, such as better enforcement of existing gun laws, or areas related to mental health and gun ownership. From a practical standpoint, we’re not ending gun violence. As long as we have guns, we’re going to have gun violence. It always astounds me that most liberals (correctly) understand that enforcing prohibitions against something as common as, say, marijuana results in untold horrors perpetrated by the state on the undeserving and innocent. Yet, somehow this same logic doesn’t apply to the fact we’re stuck with 350 million guns. Getting rid of this many guns is about as close to a literal political impossibility as there is. snip And from a philosophical standpoint, we’re not ending gun violence. People have been killing other people since Cain, and as much as you might revel in the label “progressive,” the only real historical progress here is defined by the increased efficiency with which we’re able to kill each other. Proclaiming that gun violence is on the wrong side of history is frankly nonsensical when you realize that human nature is a constant. [TM would edit to say that *fallen* human nature is a constant]
In historical terms, we’re extremely fortunate that economic and technological factors have ameliorated the West’s capacity for death dealing in the last 50 years. But in a world where ISIS is on the march, if you think that the right YouTube video can make us all join hands and actualize some cheap I’d-Like-To-Buy-The-World-A-Coke optimism about agreeing to not kill each other, you’re delusional. Do us all a favor and shut up.
The Language Of What’s Possible
As of late, this Pollyannaish attitude is amped up more than usual because it’s been paired with angry self-righteousness over the fact that evil Rethuglicans are skeptical of banning guns. I wish that were hyperbole, but it isn’t. “It’s Time to Ban Guns. Yes, All of Them” is but one recent headline at a very well known liberal publication. snip And from a philosophical standpoint, we’re not ending gun violence. People have been killing other people since Cain, and as much as you might revel in the label “progressive,” the only real historical progress here is defined by the increased efficiency with which we’re able to kill each other. Proclaiming that gun violence is on the wrong side of history is frankly nonsensical when you realize that human nature is a constant.
In historical terms, we’re extremely fortunate that economic and technological factors have ameliorated the West’s capacity for death dealing in the last 50 years. But in a world where ISIS is on the march, if you think that the right YouTube video can make us all join hands and actualize some cheap I’d-Like-To-Buy-The-World-A-Coke optimism about agreeing to not kill each other, you’re delusional. Do us all a favor and shut up.
The Language Of What’s Possible As of late, this Pollyannaish attitude is amped up more than usual because it’s been paired with angry self-righteousness over the fact that evil Rethuglicans are skeptical of banning guns. I wish that were hyperbole, but it isn’t. “It’s Time to Ban Guns. Yes, All of Them” is but one recent headline at a very well known liberal publication.
Quote: ThirstyMan wrote in post #1By Mark Hemingway, DECEMBER 11, 2015
Why are so many liberal causes predicated on rhetorical goals that are impossible to achieve?
snip And from a philosophical standpoint, we’re not ending gun violence. People have been killing other people since Cain, and as much as you might revel in the label “progressive,” the only real historical progress here is defined by the increased efficiency with which we’re able to kill each other. Proclaiming that gun violence is on the wrong side of history is frankly nonsensical when you realize that human nature is a constant. [TM would edit to say that *fallen* human nature is a constant]
Progressives and collectivists deny the existence human nature, i.e. that we come into this world capable of both good and evil.
In their world view bad things are only the result of inadequate government regulation of the minutia of our lives. In their arrogance they believe themselves to be so compassionate and intelligent and sophisticated that they are capable of ruling us for our own good.
They never question why it requires brain washing and the threat of violence to enforce their rules nor the fact that they benefit financially from the enforcement of these rules.