quote of the day

Today, it goes to Don Gwinn, for this comment to people concerned about Joe Huffman’s efforts to equate the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence Ownership to the KKK:

You may be thinking of the KKK in different terms. You seem to be thinking of “the KKK” as denoting the Klan at its height in the 20th century, riding out to lynch people and infiltrating police departments, frightening people with real threats of violence and, as you say, intimidating even a lot of white people into either joining or condoning the violence against black people with their silence.

The anti-gun movement has never been that (in this country) and never had the power to do it. They never had the great seething combination of shame and fury over losing a massively costly war to combine with racism to build up a base.

But the KKK in the 21st century is nothing like the Klan at its height. It can’t get away with violence, and it can’t even count on its members–it’s been thoroughly infiltrated with law enforcement and monitors who watch over it as a hobby. It can’t recruit to save its life, and few people are truly afraid of it. It’s reduced to saying ugly things on the internet and agitating ineffectively for the election of racist politicians, passing out leaflets on the streets and holding small marches that are inevitably outnumbered by counter-marchers and protected from humiliating defeat only by the presence of the same police the KKK sneers at.

This is much more analogous with the gun control movement.

The other key difference, though, is that there’s a wider variety of motivations in the anti-gunners than you’d find in the Klan. Just as there are a lot of people out there who might have an uneasy feeling when a black man is behind them on the street, but would never join the Klan, there are lots of people who are “vaguely” anti-gun, in that they would be uneasy if someone with a gun were standing right there in front of them, who would never be able to work up the venom of a Morford. Morford and his ilk are the KKK of the anti-gun movement, but that doesn’t imply that the entire anti-gun movement is analogous to the KKK.

Your point is still important, because I don’t want “not as bad as the KKK” to become the new standard of acceptability for anti-gun sentiments, the way “well, I’m not one of those Klanners!” has sometimes been an acceptable way to justify being a racist as long as you weren’t burning crosses.

He is quite right, in both directions. First, not every single member of the anti-gun movement is equivalent to a Klansman – some anti-firearm individuals only feel that way and belong to those organizations (as much as one can belong to the Brady Bunch) due to ignorance, misinformation, upbringing, emotional concerns, or other non-malicious motivations. That analogy would be unfair to them… the terms “apologist”, “facilitator”, “conspirator”, and “shill” would be wholly appropriate, but analogizing them to Klansmen is not.

Second, when you spell it out like that, the Brady Bunch is exactly like the modern incarnation of the KKK… As the NRA points out, the Brady Campaign’s star has been waning for a while now:

But in recent years it has experienced the longest losing streak in gun control history. The waiting period has expired in favor of the instant check system. The 1994 gun ban has expired. The number of Right-to-Carry states has continued to rise. The list goes on, at the federal, state and local level. And the group’s core arguments about the Second Amendment were rejected entirely by the Supreme Court in the Heller case. President Obama even signed bills into law which included provisions allowing the carrying of firearms in national parks according to state law, and protecting the sale of surplus military ammunition components to the private sector.

Let us se… impotent, largely ignored, overinflated claims of “membership”, infiltrated by the opposition, legislation and courts repeatedly coming down against them… yup, that sounds exactly like the KKK – and the Brady Bunch.

So long as one thinks of “bigotry” only in terms of race relations, then the term is always going to seem like something of a stretch once it is applied to other civil rights, like self-defense and self-preservation. But we would all do well to keep the actual definition of “bigot” in mind:

one who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; one who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ

Maybe Paul Helmke would be better served to use all of that lobbying money they are wasting, and buy themselves a few dictionaries instead.

(Thanks to Weer’d Beard for pointing out Don’s comment.)