As old and durable as is the plurality standard, “majority rules,” there come times when the rule to prevail is revealed as a matter of misjudgment or, at the very least, misunderstanding. That’s the unfortunate case which legal gun owners find themselves after being defeated by voters who literally ‘don’t have a clue’ about guns but lean on the old saw of voting for ‘the lesser of two evils,’ gun rights or gun control.
Gun control groups use this tactic strategically, and often. They know that, when it comes to voting in the majority of the most heavily populated 50 states, they have the so-called ‘rule of law’ on their side. Thus, California, Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, now Nevada and Colorado, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island, and Hawaii are the best bets to guarantee victory at the polls on most any gun-related issue. With few exceptions of fly-over country that have independent rural roots, gun controllers ply their wares among the gun-illiterate knowing that they can win easily.
Thus the question: Should western Washington’s blue wave political majority force their lack of issue knowledge on red-safe eastern Washington?
That state is the current and convenient example of gun control tactics that sell false-hoods to the political constituency, an army of “I dunno” soldiers who equate safety with disarmament of their civilian counterparts and vote the way they only think they know best because their false prophet political sales hawkers said so, giving them no other choice.
“More guns will make us less safe. Less guns will make us safer.” How could the weakly informed ignore that kind of professorial superiority?
Some county officials and law enforcement have made it clear that they have no intention of letting Washington’s crowded urban western quadrant tell the state’s rural population in the more massive land mass of the Evergreen State how to live their lives. Thus, the winning masses are at loggerheads with the minority population whose constitutional rights of self-protection are being trampled upon by the “less guns means less crime” sales barkers.
Thus, gun controllers claim victory in such states in which they already know legislators are like-minded and find it easy to codify bad law. In the process, they depend on changing emigration that sees an exodus of population from, say, California’s high taxes, clogged freeways and raging suburb wildfires to formerly red Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico, all states that were once reliably ideologically gun rights strongholds independent of anti-gun legislation, that are now being remade into reliable gun control sanctuaries.
There remains, fortunately, a defensive mechanism available to filter the political contamination of the ill-informed gun control electorate and their addicted masters and at least dilute the thinking of their currently anti-gun voting majority. It is the United States Supreme Court, and it is ready to launch the first strike in nine years for original constitutional thought. We have seen a panoply of new gun restrictions – one state trying dutifully to outdo another for the title of “most strict”- that have clogged the wheels of constitutional rights by enacting a storm of nit-picked rules, regulations and prohibitions that have little to absolutely no effect on keeping Americans safe from crime, from suicides, from accidents, or from any of the evils that lay awaiting action from the likes of the Las Vegas country concert shooter.
It clearly is time for the court to enforce what the founders so distinctly ordered; the misinformers and misdirected be damned.