Over at the NYT a progressive has posted a policy recommendation/call-to-action under the guise of a news story. (Well, looking back on that sentence I realize that could be used for anything posted at the NYT on any given day, but still...)
How Banks Unwittingly Finance Mass Shootings by Andrew Ross Sorkin
The gist is that since some number of mass murderers used credit cards to purchase arms and ammunition then credit card companies should either closely monitor transactions to be able to report any potential dangerous purchases and/or generally refuse transactions involving firearms and ammunition. (Of course they fail to mention the tens of millions of credit card purchases where folks buy guns and ammo but don't cause any harm, or those cases where a poor person puts a firearm on a credit card as it's the only way they can afford to have a means of defending themselves and their family, but that'd require a journalist, not a progressive with a byline.)
They want private companies to prevent folks from acquiring weapons if they think that person may commit a crime with them. May.
Outrageous you say? Orwellian in some sense? Do you wish to protest that Minority Report wasn't that great of a great movie and it'd make even worse policy?
I agree. Now do Gun Violence Restraining Orders.
The premise is identical; deny someone their Right to arms because they might - might - use those arms to some evil end. It's mainly a difference in mechanism, and to some degree timing. With Gun Violence Restraining Orders - let's just call them what they are; Gun Confiscation Orders - the government removes firearms based on the possibility someone may commit a confrontational crime. With this Sorkin proposal private companies would inhibit a person's ability to purchase arms to begin with because they may commit a confrontational crime.
The notion that a judge or a middle management CPA can discern the future and thus proclaim a person's Right to arms null and void is entirely nonsensical.
I see this is a front with dual prongs. On one side the progressives are trying to gain traction with Gun Confiscation Orders while the progressives on the other flank are trying to persuade private companies to deny the acquisition of arms. They'll take both if they can get them, but they'd be happy if just one avenue to deny a person's Rights proves successful.
(Also, since the federal government is currently forbidden from keeping a registry of gun owners [aside from owners of NFA items] having private companies compile lists that the government could then peruse could be a not unintended part of this scheme)
If a person supports Gun Confiscation Orders how can they oppose this? Does anyone really believe an unelected government employee (i.e. a judge) has any special incite or ability to gaze into the heart of a person and accurately predict the future but an employee in the banking industry doesn't? If you believe that government pixie dust is sprinkled on all .gov employees giving them special insight, making them our betters, then would not that hold true for someone in finance, with a firm that's helped you secure your investments and perhaps even make money?
Of course psychic ability is not a feature of either government or finance, and I think most folks (all both of us) that read this wouldn't have faith in anyone to deny the Right to arms because of events that have not yet unfolded. But the premise of both the propositions is the same, therefore I cannot fathom how to strongly oppose one but not the other. "Only government should abuse my Rights!" isn't exactly the best rallying cry to oppose one and support the other.
While it's true that a private concern may do whatever it wishes and thus of course may limit contracts to support or oppose things based on its on beliefs, "get woke, go broke" is as much analysis as it is a taunt. I don't agree with it as it seriously impedes the Right to contract, but some folks will make a public accommodations argument that private companies can't discriminate via transaction (the argument would be akin to "if a company can't refuse to engage in transactions involving hair products for Black folk, or Spanish seasonings, or Asian restaurants, or marital aids for the lgbteieio folks, then it'd be discriminatory to deny firearms transactions because Americans).
The coolest thing to do is oppose both, for the same reason; a person's Right to own or acquire weapons is not subject to review by any entity, corporate or governmental. Prior restraints are unacceptable and if government or a company uses them to the detriment of our Rights, then that government or company should go out of business.
If impeding someone's Right to arms because they may do something evil at some point in the future is wrong then the foundation for either proposal - Gun Confiscation Orders or companies not allowing firearms transactions - is wrong and both proposals should be opposed as vigorously as possible and appropriate.
Remember, appeasement is for chumps.
No comments:
Post a Comment