I am a great admirer of H.L. Mencken. I have been since I was in high school (mumble mumble) years ago.
But I had not previously encountered this particular essay.
The new law that it advocated, indeed, is one of the most absurd specimens of jackass legislation ever heard of, even in this paradise of legislative donkeyism. Its single and sole effect would be to exaggerate enormously all of the evils it proposes to put down. It would not take pistols out of the hands of rogues and fools; it would simply take them out of the hands of honest men. The gunman today has great advantages everywhere. He has artillery in his pocket, and he may assume that, in the large cities, at least two-thirds of his prospective victims are unarmed. But if the Nation’s proposed law (or amendment) were passed and enforced, he could assume safely that all of them were unarmed.
Also noted:
What would become of the millions of revolvers already in the hands of the American people if not in New York, then at least everywhere else? (I own two and my brother owns at least a dozen, though neither of us has fired one since the close of the Liberty Loan drives.)
I would be very interested in knowing what revolvers Mencken and his brother owned. I’d be even more interested in owning one of Mencken’s revolvers, but I suspect the associational value puts that out of my price range.
(It does not come as a great shock to me that Mencken was pro civil rights: his “A New Constitution for Maryland” included a provision establishing the right to keep and openly carry arms. But encountering an essay of Mencken’s that I haven’t previously read, and is relevant to my interests…that lights up my whole day.)
(Hattip on this one to the amazing Roberta X.)
This entry was posted on Thursday, April 4th, 2013 at 9:55 am and is filed under Books, Clippings, Guns, History, Law. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
[…] Thinking about what I wanted to write, I came to the realization that I’ve already written much of what I wanted to say: he was a huge influence on how I think about movies (for which I am grateful), his views on what is and is not art were questionable, and many of the political views he expressed later in his life were appalling. (Roger should have spent more time reading Mencken.) […]