In April 2010, during the midterm Congressional campaigns, Barack Obama famously remarked, “I think that, at a certain point, you’ve made enough money.”
This comment underlies his campaign against “millionaires and billionaires” to “make the rich pay their fair share.” What the extent of this “fair share” is — and what the limits are that he contemplates on “enough” money — have never been defined. Nor will any definition ever be forthcoming, for what underlies this mindset is the notion that the government has the right to determine what, and how much, people “need,” and a profligate government will always “need” more from those who have.
The current debate over Second Amendment rights is couched by the Amendment’s defenders, rightly, in the language of defending the parameters of a fundamental right. But what these defenders do not recognize — or, if they do recognize, have not often stated outright — is that the assault on the Second Amendment is couched in precisely the same terms of “need” that Obama has applied to income. ”No-one needs ten bullets to kill a deer,” Governor Andrew Cuomo shrieked as he hastily rammed through his ill-considered gun law. Various anti-gun commentators have asked why anyone needs a scary-looking “assault weapon” or high-capacity magazine.
The right to own something, merely because one wants to own it, is being reduced and re-defined by the gun-control advocates as something which must be justified on the basis of “need”; the entire purpose of the gun-control agitation is to further reduce the concept of personal sovereignty, defining down the right to own a weapon, just as the right to make (and keep) as much money as possible has already been effectively defined down as something to be measured and determined and ruled on by the government and not by the individual.
In King Lear, Lear relinquishes his crown and his sovereignty to the daughters who falsely profess their devotion to him and falsely swear to care for his well-being. He soon finds that he who was used to command is utterly dependent and at the mercy of those who falsely promised to ensure his welfare. When he tries to get his man Kent released from the stocks in which one of his daughters has confined him, he is unable to do so:
Goneril:
Hear me, my lord;
What need you five and twenty, ten, or five,
To follow in a house where twice so many
Have a command to tend you?
Regan:
What need one?
King Lear:
O, reason not the need: our basest beggars
Are in the poorest thing superfluous:
Allow not nature more than nature needs,
Man’s life’s as cheap as beast’s:
—Shakespeare, King Lear, Act II, Scene IV
Like Regan and Goneril, the Democrats and the Left have professed their undying devotion to the welfare and well-being of Americans, so that Americans, like Lear, will relinquish their sovereignty on the promise that their needs will be looked after. Many Americans have already fallen for this needs-based blandishment where income is concerned, on the theory that the money will come to them, and from somebody else. They are now being asked to circumscribe a fundamental right on the basis that they should “reason the need” — but if they do so, they will find, like Lear found to his cost, that the circumscription will progressively diminish until it is revealed as loss, and that with this loss any pretense of their needs being attended to will also vanish.
These arbitrators of hunting needs don’t know much about hunting.
Deer hunters don’t “need” a semiautomatic to hunt deer but there is a lot more hunt’n going on than just Bambi
Cases in point. Feral pigs are very distructive of habitat and they live in herds. They are also very smart and are known scatter quickly. You might get one or two with a bolt gun but the rest will get away. If you have an AR or a M-1A you might be able to get most of them.
A rancher who wants to cull the local coyote population to protect his flocks and herds faces a predator that moves fast — greyhouds are the fasted dogs, coyotes are faster, and can be hard to hit on the first shot if they are moving. You will most likely be one and done with your bolt acton. A semiautomatic is much better. The Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle was developed for just this use.
You own horses and burrowing critters have taken up residence in you paddock. Unchecked you will end up putting down one of your horses with a broken leg after it steps in a gopher or prarie dog burrow. That’s another hunting activity that is better served by a semiautomatic.
There are lot of reasons why a hunter would prefer an autoloader to a bold gun.
Deer hunting? I met a lot of WWII vets who used to hunt deer with M-1 Garands after they became available. Just because you can launch a bunch of rounds down range doesn’t mean you will.
The fact that the anti-gun agitators do not correctly assess the needs, while doubtless accurate, misses the point.
The point is that such declarations of “need” are an imposition from without by the government. The government has no more right to determine what your “fair share” of income shall be than to determine what your “fair share” of weaponry may be. It does not have any right, let alone any mandate, to pare and trim your rights on the basis of what it decides you “need”—and once it is permitted to do so, then the citizen becomes entirely dependent in all things upon this external governmental determination of “need.” The citizen is then as dependent, and as helpless, as Lear was, for like Lear he has relinquished his sovereignty.
Exactly. You what every single gun owner needs? As many guns of whatever type as (s)he desires, is able to afford and will use for legal purposes.
We need as many weapons and as much ammo as it takes to deter government tyranny.
And that is a hell of a lot MORE weapons and ammo than any of us have now.
The Second Amendment deserves a much broader interpretation.
The Second Amendment is NOT about hunting.
Don’t fall for this red herring.
They do that to drive a wedge between those shooters who primarily hunt deer and the rest of us. Sadly, it’s often effective.
There’s a fellow in my office with a pretty full gun safe. Every single weapon in there is either a bolt action rifle or a break-open shotgun. He’s a fanatic about sporting clays and often takes time off during deer season to get as much time in the woods as he can. Try to tell him he can’t go hunting and boy will you get an earful.
But he looks down his nose at my Glock, my AR and my paper targets with human silhouettes. He thinks that spending an afternoon practicing a draw from concealment is vaguely threatening. He’s all in favor of an “assault weapon” ban and even wonders why rifles need any detachable magazines at all.
He’s basically an anti-Second Amendment gun owner. And he’s not alone. So yes, it’s vitally important we not allow Obama and his ilk to get away with this “we don’t want to take your hunting rifles” BS.
Exactly. Even back in 1988, they were really getting into this – especially the “assault weapon” crap.
Example:
In January 1989, Josh Sugarmann had written “Assault Weapons and Accessories in America: a strategy paper” ( http://www.vpc.org/studies/awacont.htm ), suggesting that the anti-gunners raise a hullabaloo about “the need to ban such deadly assault rifles,” by trading on the public’s inability to tell the difference between a fully automatic and a semi-automatic firearm.
He urged that the anti-gunners make use of this confusion to open another front with greater prospects of success, noting that:
“…[A]ssault weapons are quickly becoming the leading topic of America’s gun control debate and will most likely remain the leading gun control issue for the near future. Such a shift will not only damage America’s gun lobby, but strengthen the handgun restriction lobby….
The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons – anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun – can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.”
Excellent read, Buzz. Another oft-overlooked example, of course, is the American Indian reservation (or reserve, in Canada). Where Indians were disarmed, promised the moon and the stars (food, health care, security, etc) if they’d just leave everything in the hands of Good Ol’ Uncle Sammy.
“Oh, we put you on worthless land, and so you cant hunt for food anymore to feed yourselves? Don’t worry, we’ll feed you! Oh, and we’ll give you health care too! Here’s the Indian Health Service financed by congress and run by bureaucrats! Enjoy!”.
Wounded Knee – Come on, Bigfoot, no use fighting. Just disarm, and return to the rez, and we’ll take care of you. That’s right, just stack your guns over there. We’ve set up some tents for you…” How’d that work out?
Many people comment about the dependency of American Indians (usually in a derogatory manner”, but you know what I see when I look at my people? A proud warrior race beaten down, subjugated, and turned – by big government and broken promises – into that dependent people many look down upon. I see the future of every American, if people don’t stand up now.
But that’s just me.
/End rant
Look, we were just trying to get y’all to *stop those blasted drums*.
Yeah, well, payback is a beeyotch, because now the smelly hippies have stolen the idea.
@RB
I haven’t laughed till I snorted in a long time. Thank you!!
You forgot to mention the Trail of Tears….
It happened to my people too, and not very long ago at all.
And people wonder why I regard the US government with the same degree of suspicion with which I regard Satan himself.
Spot on, Buzz!
Democracy is superior to all other forms of government because it is the only one that allows the concept of “Crew Resource Management” to flourish–that those in charge can not only be told they are wrong, but removed from office without resort to arms–so that errors in government can be prevented or mitigated. No other form of government reliably allows this required safety valve. Therefore, anything which exalts the rule of experts over the commons is to be looked at with askance, and this thus means sometimes need not be justified, just that the people wish it.
Actually, “Democracy” is inherently dangerous in a “mob rules” sort of way. A representative-based constitutional republic, on the other hand…
I like this guy….
Marry me.
Nicely stated, buzz.
The “need”-based slippery slope can be perfectly illustrated by the recent, draconian gun law rammed through the New York State legislature, which effectively outlaws all modern firearms. They told you that you didn’t “need “assault weapons”… then redefined the term to mean anything with an 8-round (or above) magazine. In the immortal words of Admiral Akbar: “It’s a trap!”
Excellent synopsis. They likewise try to say that having a right to a rifle is akin to having a right to a nuclear weapon, and that if you subscribe that the latter might justly be regulated, thnen surely the former must be as well. These are all rather base attempts at propaganda, but as we saw in the last election, propaganda works. At least on a surprisingly large segment of the voting populace. Too, they define “need” very narrowly. What do you need in your hands when you are hunting deer? The Second Amedndment isn’t about deer hunting. What do you need in your hands when five armed home-invaders kick in your door in the middle of the night? That cuts closer to the mark. In Heller the Supreme Court recognized a right to self-defense.
Thanks for pointing out, over at Blogmocracy, that we give all sorts of tanks and guns to Egypt without asking them what they “need” them for.
Nobody needs more than ten (or seven) rounds. This absurd use of the word “need” can be extended to other things. Nobody needs to drink a $600 bottle of Chateau Rothschild. Nobody needs an airplane that can fly upside down and do loops. Nobody needs to go down a mountain at 60 miles per hour. Nobody needs an automobile that can go 100 miles per hour. I could go on, but you get the idea. All of these could be banned with an expected saving of lives far greater than the banning of twenty round magazines. Actually, the first was banned under Prohibition, but that didn’t work out well.
“… at a certain point, you’ve made enough money.”
Try repeating the following into the mirror, Barry, while thinking of Punahou: “At a certain point, you’ve had a good enough education.”
——-
I’ve often wondered how the Punahou environment affected him. Is his class envy radicalism partly a reaction, fueled by the self-inflated radicalism of his grandparents, and Frank Marshall Davis?
If he were to walk across the campus of another uber-elite prep school, one which might remind him of his high school days, what might be going through the deepest level of his gut?
I strongly suspect that Punahou was where he first began to feel gut-chewing green-eyed jealousy. He probably never “belonged” on that campus. As a result, he probably never felt like he “had”, in the adolescence sense of possessions or status.
IIRC, there was where he wrote “King Obama” in a wet concrete sidewalk. He was almost certainly flipping a finger at everything around him. Going way off the end of the “psychologism” limb, I suspect that his aggressive Intercepts on the Choom Gang were screams for attention, from the only social group which really seemed to accept him.
But more than pubescent silliness, I think he developed a deep-seated, and well-hidden, desire for vengeance.
Welcome to the demons which lurk in your dreams, Barry.
Obama threw the Chamberlain out with the Churchill and had no understanding of what ‘Peace in our time’ actually meant.
Brilliant insight.
It is classic Bolshevik thinking — the Party decides what people need, based on their “scientific” ideology. The state then regulates consumption according to that need.
It is the same spirit behind the sumptuary laws of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, regulation what one could buy depending on “moral” ideals. In both cases, the goal is the same — to prevent social mobility and to keep people exactly where they are on the social scale.
Cui bono?