Who Do You Trusht?
by L. Neil Smith
The autumn of 1994 is almost upon us, and with it an election which may
prove pivotal in the history of the United States. It will certainly be the
most surreal the country's ever experienced. Ever since the abortive process
that gave us Bill Clinton as President, Democrats have been emboldened to show
us their true color -- red -- while Republicans can now be clearly seen draped
in that hue which characterizes their political record best, pusillanimous
yellow.
Most people are unaware that there are different sets of rules for mixing
and producing new colors, a special set for pigments and another special set
for light. Under the strange rules by which such colors are mixed politically,
the only result we can expect from mixing red and yellow is black -- the color
of fascism.
While Democrats have been busy fortifying America as a last bastion of
central planning, the command economy, and Five Year Plans, Republicans have
been ... well, perhaps what Thomas Jefferson should have said is that all
that's necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to have another
drink. That's exactly what I've seen Republicans doing every time in the last
two years that I've turned on C-Span for a strictly Republican event, weaving
and sprawling red-facedly with highball glasses slopping in their hands,
congratulating themselves that they aren't quite as politically corrupt
or personally disgusting as all the President's men and women -- and in whatever
sober moments they experienced in between, blowing their noses on the Bill of
Rights.
A full recital of their dribbling honks and wheezes, from the approval of
murderous Janet Reno to the vote on the Feinstein Amendment can be had almost
anywhere you look. Democrats are bent on stripping America's 70 million gun
owners of their last defense against mankind's two greatest natural enemies,
government and freelance criminals. And Republicans ... well, they're having
another drink.
And yet ...
And yet ...
That number, 70 million gun owners, ought to have some meaning. Half that
number, 35 million, is almost as many votes as George Bush got in 1992. One
tenth of that number, 7 million, would have tipped the balance with plenty of
room to spare. Republicans would realize this if they would stop listening to
pollsters (who by inclination and education are predominantly Democratic in
their outlook anyway) and recover from their alcoholic stupor long enough to
remember that even if a majority of people favor some kind of gun ban, the
Bill of Rights was written specifically to protect us all from the passing
popular sentiment that is all that either major party's ideology consists of
today.
But they never have and they never will. And what that means is that those
of us -- who care about the Bill of Rights and understand that it is the
one and only thing remaining in America which keeps this country civilized at
all -- have a long, hard pull ahead of us, creating an entirely new political
movement which will use whatever power it obtains to enforce the highest law
of the land, and to put those who break it -- because they're evil or simply
because they're drunk -- in a concrete condo where they can't hurt anybody
any more.
By voting to destroy the Bill of Rights as they have consistently since
Clinton was elected, Republicans have helped us make the case for that new
political movement. They've helped by demonstrating -- clearly enough that
anyone but a habitual drunk can see it -- the intellectual, moral, and
historical bankruptcy of their own sodden, whimpering, hung-over approach
to politics.
Like a habitual drunk, they'll come crawling back over the next few weeks,
promising tearfully that they'll never do it again, that they're reformed
characters, that they've taken the pledge -- all the time they're peering
dimly over your shoulder, trying to remember where they left that bottle
the last time they were home.
Don't believe them.
Never believe any politician -- especially a Republican -- about the
position he promises to take from now on with regard to the individual right
to own and carry weapons, unless he first allows himself to be photographed at
a shooting range, for public circulation now and until the sun burns out,
firing a semiautomatic "assault" rifle and a high-capacity semiautomatic
pistol.
And for safety's sake, you'd better make him take a breathalyser test, first.
Permission to redistribute this article is herewith granted by the
author -- provided that it is reproduced unedited, in its entirety, and
appropriate credit given.
Order my books at:
http://www.webleyweb.com/lneil/lnsbooks.html
My home on the web, The Webley Page: www.webleyweb.com/lneil/
My e-zine The Libertarian Enterprise: www.webleyweb.com/tle/
|