Gun Control

HB-45 is currently working its way through the U.S. House of Representatives. The Senate will consider a comparable bill. This is a large and comprehensive bill that applies to all handguns and all guns with removable magazines (that includes nearly all hunting rifles). You should read the bill for yourself - it is clearly a blatant effort at gun control. Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire Mayor of New York City, has recently founded and funded an organization called “Americans United for Safe Streets”, whose primary purpose is gun control. This organization is currently running TV ads against any pro-gun candidates in Virginia and elsewhere. President Obama has also made it abundantly clear that he has never met a gun control bill he didn’t like, witness the fact that he has voted in favor of every single gun control measure that has ever come before him. It goes without saying that most of the liberal left, and therefore most of the media and the press, strongly support gun control.

I get it. I have many friends who also strongly support gun control. In many cases, these friends of mine are willing to calmly discuss any topic except gun control (and abortion, of course). The issue seems to engender extreme positions (guess which extreme I’m at). You are either for it or against it. In any case, there is little public debate or national discussion on the issue – just agenda driven ads, TV and news shows, and newspaper articles. I get that too. Some things are too important to negotiate.

That having been said, let’s agree that this essay is a waste of time. I am unlikely to convince anyone that currently disagrees with me, and the others already agree. Nonetheless, all this pressure pushing for gun control has me squirming, so here goes anyway. I address this essay to those folks who support gun control.

First the smoke screen. Nearly all politicians’ platforms, including Obama in the last election, support hunting. Many also support shooting sports such as competitive target and skeet shooting. Even liberal politicians support these - why not? By taking this stance, politicians who actually support gun control can lull firearm owners into believing that they are not really anti-gun, while they continue to assure their liberal base that they remain true to the gun control agenda. Hunting and shooting sports are the “soft ball” issues – the smoke screen. I like to do these things, but I don’t have to. If I have to stop, I have only lost a pastime.

The real issue is personal firearms used as weapons against those who would harm us. I’m talking about owning/carrying/using a firearm (usually a handgun) to defend against criminals.

Now the constitutional issue. I believe the Second Amendment to the Constitution is clear as day. It says I, as an individual, have a right to own firearms. If you want to argue the militia thing, ok. The militia is all of our armed citizenry - the National Guard is merely its organized element. The founding fathers, American history, federal law, and the courts, are very clear that our armed citizenry is our militia. I am the militia. I am what stands between our freedom and anarchy/totalitarianism/despotism, and all the other bad “isms”. Every despot in history has first disarmed his people before taking over. The only way to confront a despot is through strength, and, if he has all the guns, you’re not strong enough.

Next the cultural issue. I believe that men (and women, if they choose) have a right, indeed a bounden duty, to protect themselves and their loved ones. The protective duty also extends to others who are defenseless and to our nation and way of life. If you take away my guns, I will not be able to protect myself, my loved ones, my country, or anyone else, from anyone who is bigger and stronger than me (at my age and stature, that list is growing fast). I understand that many folks do not agree with this notion. They believe, for example, that the best ways to protect are through negotiation and reconciliation. I hope they are right and I think they should always get to try first. However, when the big guy gets violent, it’s my turn. It’s fine with me if some men choose not to perform their protective duty, so long as they don’t seek to impede me from doing so.

How about the moral issue? Is it ever right to kill someone? That’s a personal issue between each of us and our creator. Nonetheless, I would like to remind my pacifist Judeo-Christian friends that the correct translation of the Hebrew text is, “Thou shall not murder”, not, “Thou shall not kill”. I suspect that, in the end, most of us would kill to defend our loved ones. If you agree that you would shoot a rapist in the act of attacking your daughter or wife, or send your army to destroy attacking hordes or evil despots, it shouldn’t be too much of a stretch for you to expect me to protect my loved ones (as well as you and yours, while I’m at it).

Then there is the “ick” factor. Many folks I know just think that guns are nasty and icky and they don’t even want to look at them, much less touch them. Frankly, I feel pretty much the same about tofu, the metro-sexual craze, and rap music, but it doesn’t bother me one bit if you like those things - which, of course, begs the question of why it bothers you so much that I have guns that you can’t see or touch.

Do not even think about quoting those tired and phony statistics about a child being shot every 20 seconds or whatever. Those statistics include everyone under 21, or even 25 in some cases. The statistics and those who quote them imply that these are innocent toddlers shot by gun-toting, careless, dinosaur, knuckle-dragging, rednecks. In fact, all but a tiny few are gang-related shootings, and even the most rabid anti-gun folks surely must know that gang members will obtain guns no matter what the law says. In fact, most armed assaults are committed by felons who are already legally prohibited from having guns. Do you seriously believe that a law prohibiting guns will take away the felons’ guns? It will only take away the law-abiding citizens’ guns. The old saw is correct, “If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.” In fact, violent crime rates are highest in those cities and states that have the most gun control laws. Violent criminals are not dumb. They understand that it is much more dangerous to pick on me than someone whose local or state government does not allow him to have guns. Every year, there are many thousands of documented instances in the U.S. of people successfully defending themselves or others with their personal firearms. If that’s so, why don’t we ever read about it in the press or hear about it in the media? Why, indeed – can you say “press and media with a liberal agenda”? In every non-totalitarian country that has outlawed guns, home invasions have increased dramatically. Duh. An armed citizenry really is your best protection against criminals and despots!

I suspect there may be another underlying issue. I sense that some folks who argue for gun control do so because they feel somehow threatened. They feel that, if I have a gun and they don’t, I will have some kind of advantage over them. In fact, I will have an advantage - over the criminals. If you are uncomfortable with my owning guns for this or any reason, you should know that I don’t really care why you don’t want a gun. I only want you not to interfere with my right to have one and thus protect my loved ones, as well as you and yours if I can.

Look, I know you believe that, if we outlaw guns, the world will be safer and the police will protect us. But, do you really think the police can protect you from violent criminals or gangsters? The criminals and gangsters are not dumb. They don’t attack when the police are standing there. They simply wait until there are no cops around. Then it’s up to you to provide the protection. Feel up to it?

Like all generalizations, there are many exceptions, but, in general, it seems that most city people, and city cops, and all criminals, are in favor of gun control. Similarly, it seems that most rural people and rural cops are not in favor of gun control. I suspect it has to do with whether you trust the government to take care of you or whether you prefer to take care of yourself. Personally, I prefer to take care of myself. I am, by all measures, a responsible citizen, and I can be trusted to be equally responsible with my guns. I am a law abiding, hard working, church going, moderately successful and reasonably happy man, with a great family, a great church, and a great profession. I live in a great town in a great country. I intend to do all in my power, including using my guns, to keep it all that way.

Without my guns, I am a 65 year old, overweight guy that will hardly cause a criminal to even take notice, much less quake in his boots. With my guns I am a formidable force for good. I like and need my guns. You don’t like my guns, but I think you should feel safer that I have them, and perhaps agree that both of us need me to have them.

Here’s the bottom line. I am a free man with a bounden duty to protect myself and those around me. You should know that, in my heart, I believe that surrendering my guns would be tantamount to surrendering to the forces of evil. I will not relinquish my guns peacefully. If you come to get my guns, bring a lot of help – you’re really going to need it.