Gun Owners Are Not Evil

Political Realities ^ | 04/18/13 | LD Jackson

[LD Jackson]

I have watched the ongoing debate about gun control with more than a little interest. I'm sure you can see that by the number of posts I have written in recent months, dealing with the issue of the 2nd Amendment and the attempts by more than a few individuals to limit or remove the rights that come with that particular portion of the Bill of Rights. At times, there has been a vigorous debate on this blog about those rights and what constitutes reasonable restrictions. I expect that debate to continue.

As I was browsing through the news this morning, I came across an opinion article on Fox News that started me thinking. There is a vast cultural difference between those of us who believe strongly in the 2nd Amendment, no matter if we own guns or not (I do own guns), and the people in America who would like to see every gun in America melted down or in the hands of the authorities. Let me say now that I am fully aware that there are many people who want to see stronger restrictions to our 2nd Amendment rights, but have no desire to completely do away with our gun rights. On the other hand, there are a great number of people who have no such compunctions. They believe guns are inherently evil and that the right of private ownership of guns should be either totally removed, or at the very least, restricted to the point that the average American citizen has no chance to acquire this evil weapon.

Many have asked the question of 2nd Amendment advocates, why do you oppose more restrictions on guns, restrictions that are reasonable? The answer is simple. There are many analogies that could be used. A little leaven leavens the entire loaf of bread. Some slopes are very slippery. A little bit goes a long way. Etc., etc., you get the picture. In other words, we do not trust the advocates of strong and restrictive gun control to stop with the first step. Why such distrust, you may ask? The examples of history should give us that answer. Look at Australia. That country started out with stricter gun control laws and have progressed to the point that a gun owner lives in fear of the day when the police want to inspect his guns. Just to make sure they are stored in the proper fashion, according to Australian law. The trouble is, if there is an infraction of said storage laws, the guns are confiscated, many of them never to return to their rightful owners. Do we want that in America?

Another reason so many 2nd Amendment advocates distrust the people who would enact stricter gun control laws is their attitude. We are consistently portrayed as ignorant people who know no better. Candidate Barack Obama famously said some of us were clinging to our God and our guns. They tell everyone we are in favor of allowing children to be gunned down, just like what happened in Newtown. When the background check amendment was defeated in the Senate yesterday, President Obama called it a shameful day in Washington. He tried to blame misinformation and lies for the defeat, which is funny, considering the misinformation and lies he and his gun control pals have spread about guns and the people who own them.

How does he expect us to respond when we are called evil? Do the advocates of gun control believe gun owners should just duck our heads and try to forget the lies that have been told about us and our guns? When you look at some of the ads that have been produced, such as the one put out by Michael Bloomberg and his gun control advocacy group, it's clear where the ignorance lies. The people who produced that ad obviously knew little to nothing about guns and the safety thereof. So who is really ignorant?

Gun owners are not evil. We are just people who believe strongly in the 2nd Amendment and want to protect and preserve the rights that are inherent with said amendment. We do not want to see more children gunned down, just to make sure we keep those rights. We have no desire to see more shootings or for anyone else to die at the hands of a gun, but that doesn't mean we are going to roll over and play dead on gun control. If it takes digging in our heels, then so be it. They may call us evil and ignorant, but all we really want is to retain the rights given to us by God and affirmed by the Constitution of the United States.

[abclily]

Gun owners should be appreciated, since they are able to defend themselves. Gun owners don’t need to dial 911 when faced with people invading their homes - they have to just pull the trigger. Where is the appreciation for gun owners?

[corlorde]

No, maybe not evil we just don’t care about children, per: Obama’s press conference yesterday.

[RC one]

Gun control works. just look at Massachusetts. They have some of the strictest gun laws in the country and, as a result, not one child was shot when those bombs went off in Boston last Monday.

[wastoute]

As has been pointed out to me many times here and elsewhere, never forget the difference between LIBERTIES and RIGHTS. While gummint has to act to secure rights LIBRTIES CANNOT BE INFRINGED OR RESTRAINED. They can be punished after the fact if a tyrant desies but only I control my liberty.

μολὼν λαβέ

[DakotaGator]

Gun Owners Are Not Evil

I submit that we should approach this from the opposite direction; Gun Grabbers Are Evil.

The trap I see gun owners always falling into is attempting to justify themselves to those who are in the working to destroy freedom. These people are scum who should be forced to try justify themselves, and then be publicly ridiculed for their evil actions and failure of logic.

Gun owners should never allow themselves to be chivvied into having to prove a negative, that they are not evil. They should go on the offensive that gun grabbers are evil.

That can be proven. Then the gun grabbers are exposed for the miserable scum or idiots that they are. And scum doesn't do well in the light of truth.

[CPOSharky]

Re First Amendment: TV is not “the press” so why can’t we lobby for background (and maybe IQ) checks and licenses for on air libtards?

[baddog 219]

[Pollster1]

The reason I do not support "reasonable restrictions on guns" is that there are no such restrictions. Just as prior restraint is a violation of our First Amendment rights and is rarely permitted except when the publication is obscene, defamatory, or represents a clear and present danger (Near v. Minnesota, 1931), prior restraint on our Second Amendment rights is a violation of our God-given and constitutionally protected Second Amendment rights.

The famous "you're not allowed to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater" used by gun grabbers to justify infringing on our Second Amendment rights is actually a better argument for our side:

The lawful response to maliciously yelling 'fire' in a theater to provoke a panic, when there is not actually a fire, is to prosecute the criminal who intentionally and recklessly acted in a manner likely to produce death or serious bodily harm. We do not fit everyone in every theater with a gag as a precaution - an extreme action that would infringe on the rights of law-abiding Americans.

Similarly, the lawful response to the misuse of firearms for criminal activity is to prosecute the criminal who intentionally and recklessly acted in a manner likely to produce death or serious bodily harm. We should not take guns away from everyone - an extreme action that would infringe on the rights of law-abiding Americans.

[Note: I think this makes a rather good case. If you agree, you are more than welcome to plagiarize, paraphrase, or polish my argument with or without attribution.]

[JimRed]

Some of us are!

In the eyes of the regime, anyway.