The liberal mind is a marvelously supple thing. That it routinely ranges free of its own devoutly shrieked principles is all the more admirable. Why be held down by idiotic beliefs, particularly when they’re you’re own? So it’s impressive to observe the pivots and pirouettes from we’re all the same inside, race doesn’t exist to proclamations of cold demographic triumphalism. It’s much like watching whales breach: Wow, look at that one!
The NRA will fall. It’s inevitable. Just look at the demographics.
The recent deadly shooting at an Oregon community college, like so many before it, isn’t likely to lead to new federal laws designed to curb dangerous people’s access to guns. While this understandably frustrates supporters of gun safety legislation, there is reason for them to be hopeful. The National Rifle Association’s days of being a political powerhouse may be numbered. Why? The answer is in the numbers.
Support for, and opposition to, gun control is closely associated with several demographic characteristics, including race, level of education and whether one lives in a city. Nearly all are trending forcefully against the NRA.
The core of the NRA’s support comes from white, rural and relatively less educated voters. This demographic is currently influential in politics but clearly on the wane. While the decline of white, rural, less educated Americans is generally well known, less often recognized is what this means for gun legislation.
The decline of white Americans. One, what’s a ‘white’ person? And two, why can’t they be as educated as the democrat core of blacks and mestizos? Though neither question is relevant, since you can’t make societal assumptions based on racial differences that don’t exist. It’s stereotypes about gun control today; crime and IQ tomorrow. I don’t need to explain how invalid are all of these.
But one thing not invalid, if you believe law professor Adam Winkler writing above, is that if constitution-loving conservatives care about guns, they had better start caring about race. At least that appears to be the point he is trying to make.
Polls show that whites tend to favor gun rights over gun control by a significant margin (57 percent to 40 percent). Yet whites, who comprise 63 percent of the population today, won’t be in the majority for long. Racial minorities are soon to be a majority, and they are the nation’s strongest supporters of strict gun laws.
Well it certainly sounds as though this liberal author believes both that race exists and that it has a determinative effect on key elements of society. Which would make him a supremacist were it not for the fact that he clearly expresses approval of white decline and its resulting effect on gun regulations. Whew, that was close. Obviously if a writer both acknowledged and disapproved of Western dispossession he would not only be unemployed, but under hate crime indictment. What would so-called ‘race’ have to do with a damn thing anyway? These are limber minds, indeed.
Though one topic wholly absent from this piece–odd as it was penned by a constitutional scholar–is the second amendment. Is Mr. Winkler (son of Hollywood producer Irwin Winkler) suggesting that the Constitution fluctuates with the demographic composition of the country? That is the plain implication–one he is sanguine in contemplating. And if race (which now may or may not exist depending on what ends a liberal wants to achieve) alters the constitution, what of the legacy whites who prefer its protections remain reliably static? Well they are bigots, and we move forward with the changes that may be acknowledged only if you are in favor of them. That’s what.
This is where the conservative Ghost Shirts come in. They love the constitution and believe it reciprocates the sentiment. And since that document suffers a speech impediment, we employee nine good-faith attorneys to translate its instructions. For no reason at all, I’ll give you three of their ages.
Antonin Scalia: 79
Clarence Thomas: 67
Samuel Alito: 65
Now consider the advance of those ages through the course of two Clinton (or Bush) administrations. Given the probable flexibility of the liberal minds likely to replace them, what might the Constitution have to say on the first two amendments?
1A: We Americans too deeply cherish the blessings of free speech to accept their impediment by the effluvia of hate. Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt. We find for the plaintiff.
2A: This decision upholds our country’s long and venerable right of regulated militias to bear arms. We hold this protection too important to dilute by improvident individuality. Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt. We find for the plaintiff.
And like a ventriloquist’s dummy, the Constitution will have spoken. Only the defendants will disapprove.