Monday, February 04, 2013

The Gun Debate as Division and Diversion

Has anyone else noticed that the Obama gun debate is making the gun proliferation worse?

As the debate rages, people are bee-lining it to gun shows to stock up on high magazine assault rifles. The crazy elements of society are digging ever deeper bunkers.

On the political front, Membership in the NRA and other groups is skyrocketing. The debate itself is pulling hundreds of millions of dollars out of our local communities into the pockets of Washington lobbyists.

All of this frantic activity seems bizarre because the president does not have a coherent new gun policy and it appears unlikely that any gun legislation will pass.

Obama is dragging this nation into a screeching loud debate that is unlikely to result in positive improvements in gun laws or enforcement. The debate is positioned to fuel gun sales, but is likely to result nothing but great division.

The Alinsky style of community-organization is about creating division to centralize power.

Sadly, I fear the gun debate is about creating division and diversion. A nonsensical debate about guns squeals on while the Obama administration consolidates power in health care.

Health care workers, above all others, hate guns. Doctors take oaths to do no harm and pull bullets out of crime victims. Insurance actuaries dread the liability associated with guns and violence. Many in the health sector see the very existence of guns as a health crisis and are prone to refer to the debate as the gun problem.

It's pathetic. Obama's gun debate is making the problem worse. Despite that, the debate is creating the division and diversion necessary for Obama to consolidate power in the health sector.

Unfortunately, pundits in the right have fallen for the ruse.

It is sad to see that the right spends more time and effort defending guns than they spent defending health freedom, when health freedom is a more fundamental issue than guns.

I mean, if you do not have control over the care of your body, what point is their in owning a gun?

The political forces for liberty should be engaged in a full scale debate about health freedom. Conservatives refuse to talk about free market health care. I have no idea why.

For those who are drawn into the gun control debate, I believe that the best course of attack is to point to the destructive nature of Obama's approach to the gun control debate.

Obama does not have a list of common sense approaches to reducing violence. What he is doing is fueling a divisive and destructive debate.

Obama's method to debate is typified by the "Fast and Furious" scandal.

Prior to this scandal, the left was promoting the talking point that the gun violence in Mexico was a result of the US gun culture.

At the same time that the left was developing the theme that the violence in Mexico was due to American guns, the Obama Administration was engaged in flooding the Mexican drug war with assault weapons.

Since the Obama Administration does not have a coherent gun policy to promote, my only conclusion is that this shrill debate is about creating division and diversion. The best way to counter such a tactic is to question the debate itself. Unfortunately, the tactic appears to be working because, while the gun debate rages on, there are no voices arguing for health freedom.

ADVERTISEMENT: If you are looking for home defense, I like the non-lethal Taser which incapacitates attackers. You can actually buy a Taser online (after a background check).

No comments: