S/V Danneskjöld: Self-Contradicting Self-Congratulations on Gun Control

Apparently it’s that season again. Today the AG-elect of Virginia authorized a piece about how he was elected by running on a “pro-gun-safety” ticket. There are a number of relevant issues raised. At the same time, the State of Massachusetts, Maryland and the BATFE have instituted policies of delaying actions on permits and tax stamps in order to restrict firearms transfers.

Presumably the purpose of this Washington Post OpEd is to encourage politicians to run on the platform of eviscerating Constitutional and natural rights, and to distract from the ongoing carnage in Colorado after leftist legislators in that state imposed party-line East-coast statist firearms restrictions. I’d get upset, but that’s just politics.

I take umbrage at the re-definition of the term ‘gun safety.’ Gun safety means using a firearm in a safe manner, not taking a firearm away from a person, limiting where or how they can get one, or making a registry of firearm owners. The problem is that politicians have poll-tested the word ‘gun safety’ and people (rightly) like gun safety. They also (rightly) oppose ‘gun control.’

Thus, in a single article, this leftist lawyer advocates running on an open anti-gun platform by using terms that the public associates with being pro-gun. Basically, he advocates running a campaign of open deception, and with today’s low-information public, he may indeed be right. Nonetheless, his own poll-tested terms undermine the premise of the article – both his attempted creation of a mandate to attack free citizens, and his encouragement that other similarly-situated politicians will find success doing the same.

This brings us to the dual issues surrounding arms transfer rules. If one accepts that a government entity has the right to limit in any way the transfer of arms, one accepts that they have right right to limit it entirely. Massachusetts and Maryland exercise this ‘right’ by deliberately slowing down processing times; Virginia by attempting to ration the amount of firearms a person can buy. Washington DC does it by slamming the brakes on NFA transfers, and firing almost the entire staff that handles them.

But, my greatest concern centers around the big picture. I would hate someone to take from my writing this post that I am engaging in a ‘debate,’ or a ‘discussion,’ concerning firearms rights and potential restrictions. There isn’t a discussion, and there is not a negotiation, because the issue is non-negotiable. Transfer restrictions attempted in certain states exist because in the reasoned judgement of free persons they do not rise to the level of immediacy requiring that they be forcibly rolled back. That is the extent to which they have legitimacy and permanence; nothing more.

A good read on this topic – though likely unsettling for a few – is the historically-grounded piece by Matt Bracken “Dear Mr. Security Agent,” (linked below).

Because the right of self-defense by its most effective means is innate and natural to all living beings, it cannot be given up by any person for another, ergo it is not subject to democratic vote or executive fiat. Even when a person accepts a limitation on his or her right, the limitation exists only for exactly as long as such person chooses for it to remain. It cannot be lost in contract. It cannot be forfeit at law. It is simply yours, forever, grounded in your human dignity. It dies only when you die.