The Mask Falls: Left Calling for "Gun-Free Society"

They had previously lied about their goals, claiming to be in favor of "sensible gun safety measures" or other rot.

But now they're becoming more honest: a Washington Post editor just explicitly called for a "gun free society.

A Gun Free Society.

By Fred Hiatt
Washington Post Editor

Maybe it's time to start using the words that the NRA has turned into unmentionables.

Prohibition.

Mass buyback.

A gun-free society.

Let’s say that one again: A gun-free society.

Doesn’t it sound logical? Doesn’t it sound safe? Wouldn’t it make sense to learn from other developed nations, which believe that only the military and law enforcers, when necessary, should be armed -- and which as a result lose far, far fewer innocent people than die every year in the United States?

Yes, even saying these words makes the NRA happy. It fuels the slippery-slope argument the gun lobby uses to oppose even the most modest, common-sense reforms. You see? Background checks today, confiscation tomorrow.

And yes, I understand how difficult it would be. This is a matter of changing the culture and norms of an entire society. It would take time.

Note that he claims that using these words is dangerous, because the NRA would interpret them as a slippery slope argument to claim that the left wants a gun free society.

But that is precisely what Hiatt wants.

He's accusing the NRA of being right, but in an unhelpful way.

Ezra's Folly, I mean Vox, jumps on the idea and pushes it.

Harry Reid claimed to be pro-Second Amendment for his whole career -- but now that he's retiring, there's no more reason to maintain that fiction:

Hillary Clinton is announcing she'll start using extra-constitutional means to declare by executive fiat that the non-existent gun show loophole should no longer exist, and maybe that's what Obama has in mind when he promises more executive action on gun control:

The White House confirmed that President Obama was preparing a series of executive actions on gun control to match his recent passion on the issue after the latest mass shooting in Oregon.

"It's a high priority and will continue to be until we start to see more progress on this issue in this town," White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters today at the press briefing.

Earnest said he would "quibble" with anyone who criticized the president for not voicing any specific gun control proposals during his press conference, asserting that the White House was working behind the scenes for more executive actions on guns.

"I can tell you that they're not stumped, they’re continuing to review the law that’s on the books and continuing to consult with legal authorities but also others who may have ideas about what steps that can be taken to keep guns out of the hands of criminals," Earnest said.

Glenn Reynolds predicts the Democrats will pay a price for this, and further speculates that Obama is pushing gun control because his foreign and economic policies are in tatters.

Obama would just as soon we didn't talk about any of these debacles. The gun issue may not be a winner for him, but it's an ideologically divided issue where most Democrats will take his side, and it’s a hot-button issue that lets him inflame debate just by bringing it up.

These other stories, meanwhile, raise questions about Obama’s presidency that even Democrats are finding hard to ignore. Is it any wonder that Obama would rather talk about guns?

Maybe just more Stray Voltage. But maybe not.

posted by Ace at 08:10 PM

| Access Comments