Remember yesterday when I criticized Drew Magary, the intellectually challenged writer from GQ? It’s happening again. Another member of the GQ brain trust has decided to attack Ben Carson. Now, I’m no Carson apologist, but like Magary, GQ’s Jack Moore doesn’t seem to fully understand what words mean, and it frustrates me.
In an article titled “Ben Carson Reaches Peak Crazy, Says Dead Bodies Are Preferable to Gun Control,” Moore recounts a recent Facebook Q&A in which Carson said:
“The first question tonight comes from Dan. He wants to know if the tragedy has altered my position as a supporter of the Second Amendment. Dan, I grew up in the slums of Detroit. I saw plenty of gun violence as a child. Both of my cousins were killed on the streets. As a Doctor, I spent many a night pulling bullets out of bodies. There is no doubt that this senseless violence is breathtaking – but I never saw a body with bullet holes that was more devastating than taking the right to arm ourselves away.”
Cue the unmitigated outrage from Moore, who writes:
“That is insanity. Seeing MURDERED HUMAN BEINGS is less devastating than the idea of gun control?”
Moore goes on to write a fictional account in which Carson talks to his campaign manager about gun control, and Carson’s advisor tells him:
“Ben, you can say you’re pro-gun, but I wouldn’t compare losing the guns to dead humans. That’s really heartless and offensive and, to be honest, undercuts your position.”
On its face, what Ben Carson said in his Q&A answer may seem insensitive or offensive, but that’s because we’re viewing it through the lens of 21st century American liberalism. The leftist media has warped our minds and altered our perception. Let’s take a step back, and actually dissect what Carson said, and why he said it. I know. Sounds crazy, right?
The thrust of Carson’s answer was this: Death in the form of gun violence is tragic, but taking away our God given and constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms would be worse. The next logical question is “how?” How would taking away our Second Amendment rights in the form of gun registration, and possible confiscation be worse than the deaths of innocents by firearms?
Mark Twain said that history doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme. Every day we live bears the markings of what came before, and as such, we need only look back through history to understand why giving up the right to bear ams leads to even more danger and death.
The 1920’s and 1930’s were a cancerous time in Germany. Stephen P. Halbrook, legal scholar and author of Gun Control in the Third Reich: Disarming the Jews and “Enemies of the State” writes:
“In 1931, Weimar authorities discovered plans for a Nazi takeover in which Jews would be denied food and persons refusing to surrender their guns within 24 hours would be executed. They were written by Werner Best, a future Gestapo official. In reaction to such threats, the government authorized the registration of all firearms and the confiscation thereof, if required for ‘public safety.’ The interior minister warned that the records must not fall into the hands of any extremist group. In 1933, the ultimate extremist group, led by Adolf Hitler, seized power and used the records to identify, disarm, and attack political opponents and Jews.”
By 1938, Jews were essentially banned from owning guns. Ben Shapiro cites an order from the government of Germany from November of 1938, which stated:
“Persons who, according to the Nurnberg law, are regarded as Jews, are forbidden to possess any weapon. Violators will be condemned to a concentration camp and imprisoned for a period of up to 20 years.”
By the early 1940’s, the Nazis had walled off a section of Warsaw, making it into a ghetto for Jews. In 1943, after mass deportations to concentration camps, the Jews had had enough, and fought back. The Warsaw Ghetto uprising was only supposed to last for three days, but it stretched for a month because the Jews had stockpiled weapons.
“The Warsaw Ghetto uprising not only delayed the Nazi war machine for a month, it forced the Nazis to redirect military resources into a territory they had already conquered. The Warsaw Ghetto uprising also led directly to the Polish uprising against the Nazi regime, which forced massive redeployment of Nazi military resources.”
Disarming victims is a classic precursor to tyranny. Without the means to defend oneself, a government can do whatever it wants to its people. And as Ben Shapiro told Piers Morgan:
Shapiro: “Fundamentally, the right believes that the basis for the Second Amendment is not really about self-defense, and it’s not about hunting, it is about resistance to government tyranny. That’s what the Founders said…”
Morgan: “Which tyranny are you fearing yourself?”
Shapiro: “I fear the possibility of a tyranny rising in this country in the next 50 to 100 years. Let me tell you something, Piers. The fact that my grandparents and great grandparents in Europe didn’t fear that is why they are now ashes in Europe.”
There are certainly things we need to look at in terms of pinpointing and profiling those who would commit mass-shootings, and we also need to do something about the gang culture, which is the area where many gun deaths occur. But nothing thus far proposed by Democrats would fix these problems. What they’ve proposed would only lead to firearms being taken out of the hands of law-abiding people.
That said, the ability to protect oneself, be it from criminals or a tyrannical government, is a right. And history has shown repeatedly that once that right is taken away, death follows.
The intellectually bankrupt Jack Moore at GQ cannot see past his own surface level understanding of this issue, and is thus frightened and disturbed by what Ben Carson said—much like how a dog is afraid of the vacuum.
Certainly Ben Carson is open to solutions that would mitigate the damage done by psychopaths with guns, or any weapons, but he also knows that gun bans a) don’t stop criminals from getting guns, and b) leave the people defenseless in the event of a government tyranny, in which case, massive death follows.
In short, gun violence sucks, but giving up our Second Amendment rights could very well lead to a different kind of gun violence at the hands of the state. It’s better to find practical solutions to these problems rather than strip away the singular defense we have against tyranny.