There are few things harder to understand to a Constitutional Conservative than the left’s obsession with gun control. For those who are sensitive to the sentiment of less guns somehow magically resulting in less crime, there are a few simple things we need to answer:
Think through…practically, what that would mean. What does it mean in terms of self-defense? Does it mean that the weakest have a better chance to defend themselves or a lesser chance?
The deep, dark little secret that the “gun-control” advocates never tell their useful idiots is that guns are the great equalizer. Someone who wields a firearm gives themselves a chance to defend against people who would do them or their loved ones harm. Stronger people. No amount of physical fitness or self-defense training can truly give a 5′ 3” housewife the ability to defend herself against a determined attacker. And, regardless of what the movies tell you…enough aggressors will dominate any single person. Commando and Rambo always had LOTS of ammo. There is no logic in pretending that living in a world where the strongest are more easily able to dominate the weak is a good thing. It also makes us more reliant on our Government protectors and less on ourselves.
But guns, in one shape or form, have been a part of human life for hundreds of years. There is no magic wand — or laws — which can take them away…which brings us to point two:
Since guns are here and we can’t wish them away, what in God’s name makes sense about only allowing criminals and law enforcement to have the most effective ones? Some have a tendency to believe that anything past a shotgun or revolver is simply just too militant for us poor citizens to carry. They obsess about the number bullets in a magazine; how hard it is to pull the trigger; the accuracy of the gun; the ease in which it is reloaded; the caliber…you name it. All of these things are as important in the hands of the defender as they are the aggressor. Anything else (harking back to the brief little journey in the world of no guns) would be like outlawing swords, and demanding that everyone defend themselves with kitchen knives. It is frighteningly stupid.
Third. Standing your ground IS self defense. Laws which only allow people to run and hide if they are attacked, by their very essence, seek to make the aggressor the victim, and the defender the aggressor. It is madness, and it is an invitation to chaos and a forfeit of rule of law. (Another little secret to the Trayvon Martin case is that if the real issue is “stand your ground” laws…and Zimmerman stood his ground, then who was the aggressor?)
Neutering “stand your ground” laws, and depriving citizens of their ability to defend themselves by the most effective available means is to simultaneously invite anarchy and tyranny.
Put more simply. There are three groups of people who seek to carry and use firearms (or weapons, in general):
- Those who wish to do harm or take for themselves things they have not earned. (In other words: criminals.)
- Those who wish to defend themselves from the above.
- Law enforcement and military.
Now dig deep down and ask yourself one last thing: Which of the three do you want to have most of the guns? Everything else is just politicking or fear mongering.