By Kevin D. Williamson
Sunday, March 24, 2019
The government of Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern in New Zealand
has, with the support of the opposition, decided to enact fundamental changes
in the nation’s firearms laws less than a week after the massacre at two
Christchurch mosques.
This is the opposite of leadership. It is also an example
of why Americans should cherish our Bill of Rights and resist current
progressive attempts to gut the first two of its amendments.
New Zealand is prohibiting and seizing certain common
firearms, including semi-automatic rifles described as “military-style,” a term
with no substantive meaning. American progressives — the ones who are always
reassuring us that they don’t want to seize anybody’s guns but seek only
“commonsense” regulation — are so green with envy that they may spontaneously
begin photosynthesis.
Prohibiting ordinary firearms is not a good policy, but
if it were a good one, it would have been a good one a year ago — and it would
still be a good one a year from now. Acting with a minimum of debate and
reflection in the wake of a convulsive national horror may be the easiest way to enact sweeping legal
changes, but it also is the worst
way.
This is especially true when the question involves the
fundamental rights of citizens. That the government of New Zealand does not
recognize the right to keep and bear arms as a civil right — a right that
distinguishes citizens from subjects — is no more relevant to the question than
the censorship enacted by the junta in Beijing is to the status of free speech
as a civil right. Governments do not create
human rights — they only recognize them or violate them.
Democratic governments violate civil rights most often
when their citizens are terrified and angry: That kind of fearful stampeding is
how you get nice liberals like Franklin Roosevelt building concentration camps
and rounding up citizens for detention based on their ancestry.
Nicholas Kristof, writing in the New York Times, considers the headlong rush in New Zealand and
concludes: “That’s what effective leadership looks like.” Representative
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and others say the same thing, in almost the same
words. But Ardern et al. are not engaged in leadership
at all; they are engaged in followership,
trying to appeal to the emotions of people who are traumatized, scared, and
angry. Getting out in front of a parade is not leadership. Getting out in front
of a parade of people wracked by rage and terror is demagoguery.
Thank goodness for stubborn old George Mason. Mason, the
author of Virginia’s bill of rights, was skeptical of the new central
government being created at the Constitutional Convention, believing it to have
been invested with too much power. (Who in 2019 can say he was entirely wrong?) He refused to sign off
on the final product, and James Madison introduced the Bill of Rights in an
effort, ultimately unsuccessful, to assuage Mason and his camp.
Though the Washington
Post may lament the fact, the United States is fortunate in that the
Constitution provides at least a few guardrails to keep the stampeding herd
from going over the edge entirely. The Bill of Rights shelters certain
fundamental rights from democratic passion — no matter how terrified, how
angry, how sanctimonious, how self-righteous the demos and the demagogues may be.
It is instructive to note who opposes those protections
and wishes to see them dissolved. Senate Democrats under Harry Reid voted to
nullify the First Amendment, which stands in the way of their desire to put all
political discourse under heavy regulation. The same so-called progressives
wish to see the Second Amendment either diminished to meaninglessness or — as
the more honest among them will forthrightly admit — repealed entirely. The
same left-wing activists have declared open war on the concept of due process,
for example in their proposals to revoke the constitutional rights of Americans
who have been put on various governmental watch-lists but who never have been
charged with, much less convicted of, any crime. Meanwhile, ordinary gun crimes
— the high-profile mass shootings that command so much attention are not a
statistical blip in the grand scheme of American criminal violence — go largely
unprosecuted, and often uninvestigated, in Democrat-dominated areas such as
Chicago and by Democrat-allied forces in the federal government, for purely
political reasons.
Strange and remarkable that the same people who are eager
to gut the Bill of Rights can’t be bothered to investigate a straw-buyer case
in St. Louis. One detects in this peculiar situation something at play that has
nothing to do with homicide.
The people of New Zealand are being stampeded into
forfeiting their civil rights with remarkably little discussion or time for
contemplation. Demagogues adore the urgency of now, and moral panic has its
political uses.
Today marks a seldom-observed anniversary: On March 24,
1765, Britain enacted the Quartering Act, which forced American colonists to house
and feed some 10,000 British troops in their homes, shops, and other private
buildings. This was one of what were called the Coercive Acts in Britain — and
the Intolerable Acts in America. This
practice, denounced in the Declaration of Independence, is prohibited by the
Third Amendment. Quartering troops has not come up very often since the
Revolution, but the rights protected in the First and Second Amendments have
and do. That these rights have withstood so much panic and demagoguery for so
many years is a testament to the practical value of writing things down.
Americans are no less likely than the people of New Zealand to be buffaloed
into divesting ourselves of our rights.
Happily, we had the foresight to make that difficult for
ourselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment