Making infants of other cultures

Let's get clarity here.

The idea that we must ban firearms because certain cultures have a high prevalence of gun violence is like saying "Certain cultures are not equipped to participate fully in a free and democratic society where there are rights and responsibilities".

Such is the implicit message of gun control fans like Mitch Landrieu and Hillary Clinton (post noted yesterday) to consider:

1. In suggesting that we must ban guns - guns that have been around for hundreds of years - because people of certain cultures are killing each other in large numbers in gang and drug-related violence (while the overall murder rate in the country has declined) these politicians are asserting that certain groups are not capable of acting in a civilized manner if they have access to certain tools or objects.  This is certainly the case Governor Landrieu of Louisiana seemed to be making in his "passionate" speech in his majority black city.

This seems an incredible contradiction for them:  Liberals want to be inclusive, they value diversity, "We are all the same."  Consider the furor over books like "The Bell Curve" or any other research on ethnic differences in abilities.  It violates the liberal sensitivities to suggest that there are inherent differences in cultural or social fitness. Yet, here they are, making an argument (because it suits their desired position on guns) - a specious disgusting argument - that undermines that very idea, that says some people are not ready to live among us.  They want us to believe that certain cultures or races are too childlike to be able to behave in civilized ways and that the only way we help them is to eliminate dangerous elements from their environment.  In essence we are to treat them like children; lock up the guns and playboys!

I am not African-American. But I know how I feel when they me tell that I cannot be trusted to carry a firearm because someone else misuses theirs.  Hence I can only try imagine what it would feel like to liberal's minority supporters who are being told they are a violent child-like group that cannot be trusted to live in harmony as long as there are firearms available.  They cannot control themselves. They need Hillary or some other high society, well-to-do lilly-white, liberal politician, one who has round-the-clock armed security and lives behind walls and guarded gates, to tell them how to protect their culture and community. And, of course, the rest of us need to give up rights if there is someone else who cannot live civilly with that right - right?

Not going to happen.

So which is it?  Can we all live in a civilized society, co-exist, and be trusted to act like adults with our rights and all the adult tools and toys that come with it?  Or do we need to define certain groups who are not capable of that?  Should that be a disqualifying entry put on a background check?  The would be discrimination.  If so, then we need to consider how it changes our nation, our society, our culture, when we define our rights and responsibilities on the basis of the least capable among us.  Either we are all capable or we are not.  Pandering politicians need to decide.

A tangent:  Isn't it funny how when America went into other nations trying to build democracy and spread freedom, Bush and his neocon friends became the but of jokes as it became clear that not all cultures were ready for or even truly desired such freedom and such a form of government.  You take the dictatorial tyrannical cap off of the bottle and all hell breaks loose.  The hubris of America politicians, believing that everyone wants to be like us, wants what we have.

Now, year later, in the face of that failure and the bemoaning of such interventionism, we have of course, found a new answer.  Take in large numbers of members of those cultures into the society we have here - somehow expecting that they will be ready for or desire it, that this will not change the essence of our culture.