One of the most disturbing things about gun-control (which is really anti-liberty or "rights control") is how all of a sudden the law abiding citizen has been labeled as a potential or outright criminal. What is missing are the faces and stories of those who legally own firearms and use them often with no intent to do harm.
Out of all gun crime, a fraction of a percent involves legally owned firearms (NRAILA.org). Yet, listening to the media, it would seem that every shooting crime is committed by someone who legally purchased a gun. And that's just wrong. Using this premise, a newspaper decided to print the names of pistol permit holders (I refuse to reprint the link). They wanted to warn the public about potentially dangerous individuals who live next door. But it must be asked, why is this not done for those who already perpetrated terrible actions, like known sex offenders, felons, or the violent mentally ill? Why are we treating good people like they need to be watched or exposed? What have they done to warrant this invasion of privacy?
Another argument from the the "rights control" movement says that people don't need certain types of guns or guns in general. They claim that military style weapons serve no other purpose than to kill (ConservativeDailyNews.com). The response to this is the reasons vary, from self defense to hunting (LongRangeHunting.com). However, why does a purchase that doesn't break the law need justifying? Why isn't it good enough to just say a law abiding citizen, living a free society, wants something that is guaranteed in the Constitution and legally purchased? The left would answer that guns are different, because they are capable of killing people. Therefore they need to be removed from society. With that rationale hammers need to go too, which are used in more murders than rifles (CBS). And don't forget all cars, because some drivers are irresponsible, operate an automobile drunk, and cause harm or slaughter.
Most importantly though, gun owners aren't thugs. They are neighbors, friends, family, and coworkers who use guns for sport and self-defense, pay a great deal for them, and follow laws and safety standards. With each purchase they submit themselves to background checks and, in some states, an extensive licensing process that meticulously goes through several aspects of private life.
So when a former, eight year veteran of the Marines (God bless our military!) speaks out against Diane Feinstien's assault weapons ban (TheBlaze.com & Inquisitr.com), it puts a face on the pro liberty side. Here is a man who protected this country with his own well being and may soon be told his Second Amendment rights are severely limited. Why? What has he done? Who has he hurt? What law has he broken?
The left loves making the other side look like a faceless, heartless robot or barbarian. They paint themselves as the caring, rational ones. But lets not forget that conservatives, pro-liberty people, firearm owners, and NRA members are people too. Just because they disagree with the left does not mean they are horrid individuals. In fact, most of the time, it makes them better citizens.
No comments:
Post a Comment