An unhappy analogy: guns and slavery

[Lumpy]

Let me preface this by saying that I believe owning weapons is a fundamental right that should not be infringed; I think my many posts and long participation on this board speak for themselves. That said, I have posted previously that I worry that in the long run, despite fighting the good fight, that gun ownership in America may be on the wrong side of history. I fervently HOPE I'm wrong on that score, and gun rights have bounced back significantly since the nadir of the 1990s and the Assault Weapons Ban. But all our gains seem fragile, forever in danger of being smashed by one political swing that puts the left back in power. What especially bothers me, given how I believe in gun ownership, is how closely the narrative of gun rights vs. gun control mirrors the narrative of slavery vs. abolition in 19th century America. To wit:

• At the time of our nation's founding, {guns/slavery} are an unremarkable feature of society.
• After a time, some of the states choose to ban or heavily restrict {guns/slavery} while others don't. This is unremarkable and held to be a purely local matter.
• In the states where {guns/slavery} are banned, an abolitionist sentiment arises, avowing that {guns/slavery} are an evil, a bane of society that ought to be banned everywhere and certainly restricted in every way possible. Those who own {guns/slavery} disagree with this to say the least.
• The federal government gets involved. It asserts an authority to place restrictions on {guns/slavery} in every area that falls under the federal purview. {guns/slavery} owners get outright alarmed, wondering just where this process will end. They organize politically to fight.
• A United States Supreme Court ruling upholds the right to own and travel with {guns/slavery}. The pro-{guns/slavery} side welcomes this; the abolitionists decry the decision as flawed, partisan, and effectively overturning their right to regulate or ban {guns/slavery} in their home states. The cries of the banners get ever more shrill.
• ?????

So the antis have this analogy that like slavery, firearms ownership is a barbaric anachronism, a holdover from a more primitive era that no civilized country should tolerate; and that they are "reasonable" while it is the {guns/slavery} owners who are being ever more inflexible and militant in attempting to shove their "right" down the rest of the country's throat.

Given how much I think firearms are good (and slavery was evil), I hate how well this analogy fits.

[Ghost]

I don't see an analogy, guns are items and slaves were people. The very items that allowed our country to exist in the first place and the very items that will restart this country if need be.

[Lumpy]

Late addendum: I'm somewhat comforted that there is another analogy that fits just as well, and I fervently hope THIS analogy is the one that holds: Prohibition- to wit:

• {guns/alcohol} are an unremarkable feature of American society from its founding.
• As the Industrial Civilization gets underway and America becomes more urbanized, the abuse of {guns/alcohol} become more obvious and a civic problem.
• In response, localities (cities, counties, eventually entire states) attempt to control the problem by enacting laws against {{guns/alcohol}.
• The ideologically motivated progressives decry {guns/alcohol} as a barbaric anachronism from a more primitive time, a bane of society which ought to be banned. They organize to bring this about nationally, and eventually succeed.
• However, the narrative the prohibitionists took- that {guns/alcohol} were "pushed" by the manufacturers and sellers, and only {yahoos/drunks} will miss them- turns out to be false:Americans want {guns/alcohol}, and if they can't be gotten legally will turn to other ways.
• A huge, insuppressable clandestine market for manufacturing and selling {guns/alcohol} springs up. Efforts at prohibition enforcement turn out to be futile.
• Eventually, a mandate arises for overturning the prohibition of {guns/alcohol}, and the bans are lifted.

[linksep]

Modified from Dennis Leary's "@$$hole" song:

there ain't a g0ddamn thing lefties can do about it
You know why, because we've got the guns, that's why
Two words, fifty fu©king BMG, OK?
Richfield, Golden Valley, Roseville, they can have all the gun-free zones they want
They can have a big gun-free cakewalk
Right through the middle of Calhoun Square
And it won't make a lick of difference
Because we've got the guns, OK?

[yukonjasper]

I disagree with the "we got the guns" mentality. That only gets you so far and the false bravado is a bit immature. That attitude is the reason they want to take them. Being a bully and threatening......whatever you are threatening only increases the perception that gun owners are wild eyed crazy people who shoot first and ask questions later.

[Lumpy]

Modified from Dennis Leary's "@$$hole" song:

there ain't a g0ddamn thing lefties can do about it
You know why, because we've got the guns, that's why
Two words, fifty fu©king BMG, OK?
Richfield, Golden Valley, Roseville, they can have all the gun-free zones they want
They can have a big gun-free cakewalk
Right through the middle of Calhoun Square
And it won't make a lick of difference
Because we've got the guns, OK?

There is that- the left can hardly take up guns to abolish guns. And as long as there's still something resembling democracy in America, they won't be able to have the government do it for them. Plus, guns don't run away given the chance.

[Grayskies]

Late addendum: I'm somewhat comforted that there is another analogy that fits just as well, and I fervently hope THIS analogy is the one that holds: Prohibition- to wit:

• {guns/alcohol} are an unremarkable feature of American society from its founding.
• As the Industrial Civilization gets underway and America becomes more urbanized, the abuse of {guns/alcohol} become more obvious and a civic problem.
• In response, localities (cities, counties, eventually entire states) attempt to control the problem by enacting laws against {{guns/alcohol}.
• The ideologically motivated progressives decry {guns/alcohol} as a barbaric anachronism from a more primitive time, a bane of society which ought to be banned. They organize to bring this about nationally, and eventually succeed.
• However, the narrative the prohibitionists took- that {guns/alcohol} were "pushed" by the manufacturers and sellers, and only {yahoos/drunks} will miss them- turns out to be false:Americans want {guns/alcohol}, and if they can't be gotten legally will turn to other ways.
• A huge, insuppressable clandestine market for manufacturing and selling {guns/alcohol} springs up. Efforts at prohibition enforcement turn out to be futile.
• Eventually, a mandate arises for overturning the prohibition of {guns/alcohol}, and the bans are lifted.

I don't see this either, guns are part of the right to defend yourself and your family, there is no right to drink beer.

[Holland&Holland]

Late addendum: I'm somewhat comforted that there is another analogy that fits just as well, and I fervently hope THIS analogy is the one that holds: Prohibition- to wit:

• {guns/alcohol} are an unremarkable feature of American society from its founding.
• As the Industrial Civilization gets underway and America becomes more urbanized, the abuse of {guns/alcohol} become more obvious and a civic problem.
• In response, localities (cities, counties, eventually entire states) attempt to control the problem by enacting laws against {{guns/alcohol}.
• The ideologically motivated progressives decry {guns/alcohol} as a barbaric anachronism from a more primitive time, a bane of society which ought to be banned. They organize to bring this about nationally, and eventually succeed.
• However, the narrative the prohibitionists took- that {guns/alcohol} were "pushed" by the manufacturers and sellers, and only {yahoos/drunks} will miss them- turns out to be false:Americans want {guns/alcohol}, and if they can't be gotten legally will turn to other ways.
• A huge, insuppressable clandestine market for manufacturing and selling {guns/alcohol} springs up. Efforts at prohibition enforcement turn out to be futile.
• Eventually, a mandate arises for overturning the prohibition of {guns/alcohol}, and the bans are lifted.

I don't see this either, guns are part of the right to defend yourself and your family, there is no right to drink beer.

Pretty sure in Wisconsin there is.

[2in2out]

Late addendum: I'm somewhat comforted that there is another analogy that fits just as well, and I fervently hope THIS analogy is the one that holds: Prohibition- to wit:

• {guns/alcohol} are an unremarkable feature of American society from its founding.
• As the Industrial Civilization gets underway and America becomes more urbanized, the abuse of {guns/alcohol} become more obvious and a civic problem.
• In response, localities (cities, counties, eventually entire states) attempt to control the problem by enacting laws against {{guns/alcohol}.
• The ideologically motivated progressives decry {guns/alcohol} as a barbaric anachronism from a more primitive time, a bane of society which ought to be banned. They organize to bring this about nationally, and eventually succeed.
• However, the narrative the prohibitionists took- that {guns/alcohol} were "pushed" by the manufacturers and sellers, and only {yahoos/drunks} will miss them- turns out to be false:Americans want {guns/alcohol}, and if they can't be gotten legally will turn to other ways.
• A huge, insuppressable clandestine market for manufacturing and selling {guns/alcohol} springs up. Efforts at prohibition enforcement turn out to be futile.
• Eventually, a mandate arises for overturning the prohibition of {guns/alcohol}, and the bans are lifted.

This is a more accurate analogy, with similar chances for success.

Dinesh D'Souza has an interesting viewpoint on slavery. I think that's not something which is simply perceived to be evil but is actually as evil as it appears.

[Grayskies]

The US is unique in that we had a very bloody war to end slavery in the US, yet very few in the US (and the world) seem interested in ending slavery in many countries through out the world

Perhaps, if the world chooses to get serious about ending slavery, they might start by purging countries with abysmal human rights records from the united nations human right council...

https://www.ohchr.org/en/hrbodies/hrc/p ... mbers.aspx

[Holland&Holland]

The US is unique in that we had a very bloody war to end slavery in the US, yet very few in the US (and the world) seem interested in ending slavery in many countries through out the world

Perhaps, if the world chooses to get serious about ending slavery, they might start by purging countries with abysmal human rights records from the united nations human right council...

https://www.ohchr.org/en/hrbodies/hrc/p ... mbers.aspx

Naw, they would rather just complain about the US.

[Grayskies]

The US is unique in that we had a very bloody war to end slavery in the US, yet very few in the US (and the world) seem interested in ending slavery in many countries through out the world

Perhaps, if the world chooses to get serious about ending slavery, they might start by purging countries with abysmal human rights records from the united nations human right council...

https://www.ohchr.org/en/hrbodies/hrc/p ... mbers.aspx

Naw, they would rather just complain about the US.

Too True.