Ruminations on the Threatened Carrboro Gun Ban

(Okay, it actually fell apart two or three years ago)


Imagine my surprise when I read Anne Blythe's "Carrboro gun ban could take title as toughest." So now our tax-squandering Gauleiters are planning to ban some "assault weapons" along with ALL handguns, eh? I guess that it was inevitable. After all, their idols on the Chapel Hill Town Council decided to monkey up some limited anti-gun measures last year, so the Board of Alderpersons -- tired of always having to play the bumbling Brownshirt to Chapel Hill's much slicker Gestapo -- gleefully pounced on this opportunity to one-up their betters.

I got a big charge out of the rationale given for the Board's refusal to allow the voters a say in this matter. Apparently a public referendum would, in some mysterious fashion, make it easier for the NRA to launch a lawsuit. Huh? I fail to see how that makes any sense, except as a cynical smoke screen for the real reason -- they don't think they'd win in a stand-up fight. While I'm not a big fan of pure democracy (our country was intended to be a constitutional republic, with rights protected from the whims of the majority), I have some lingering faith that most of Carrboro's residents aren't nearly as foolish as the antics of their elected "representatives" would indicate.

Obviously I'm not real worried about the inevitable ban. Heck, after all the bad juju that has been pumping out of Washington lately, I'm actually looking forward to what will undoubtedly turn out to be a carnival-quality geek show. For example:

First off, I'm glad that Carrboro has decided to shoulder this burden. If any town in North Carolina could pull off an outright gun ban capable of surviving a few seconds of judicial review, it is Chapel Hill. Their Town Council is made up of freedom-hating socialists, but you have to give them credit for being crafty and fairly intelligent. Carrboro's overseers are not. Whatever slap-dash abomination they churn out will probably be so downright crappy that even a hungry mutt wouldn't nuzzle it, and when their edict gets laughed out of court, the congratulatory phone calls from Sarah Brady and Janet Reno (the butcher of Waco) will dry up muy pronto.

Second, the members of the board are already backtracking from their earlier chest-thumping, and are now sheepishly proposing that gun owners will be given a full year to rid themselves of their nasty firearms. I trust that even most pre-schoolers can see through that dodge. If the darned guns are such a problem, why the hell won't the police start rounding them up the instant this cow flop gets passed?

Third, the handgun ban may be a rather messy blessing in disguise. Since folks will still need firearms with which to defend themselves, many will take a very large step up the firepower ladder by acquiring shotguns, which are cheap, readily available, and don't require a waiting period. These weapons produce grievous wounds at the short distances typical of home-defense situations. Due to the large number of deep-penetrating pellets found even in light target loads, surgical debridement and reconstruction are almost impossible, which means that any solid torso hit will almost certainly result in one very dead perpetrator. And that's good. Every deceased criminal probably means one fewer vote for our loonier alderpersons. Who knows, if this Darwinian culling is allowed to go on for a few years, perhaps the town could come up with a few elected officials who wouldn't be downright embarassments.



Up the spout