Maybe I should change sides . . .

I see that the VPC is recycling a 4 1/2 year old press release on their main page. What's wrong, guys--can't afford to hire someone to write something more current? Ain't that a shame--citizen disarmament advocacy used to pay so well, too.

The funny thing is that if they wanted a pro-rights piece, they could have chosen from among scores--probably hundreds--of eloquent, compelling writers, who would have been happy to write something for free. I am not, by the way, trying to claim that I belong among such company--I'll never write with the skill of the gun rights bloggers I admire. My point is that the myth of the money-laden "gun lobby" notwithstanding, we in the gun rights blogging community aren't doing this for monetary compensation (at least I hope we're not, since none is coming our way); we do it because when rights need defending, we see ourselves as duty-bound to provide that defense. Being peaceable people, we would prefer to fight that battle with words.

The citizen disarmament lobby, by contrast, owes almost its entire internet presence to paid shills, whose advocacy is bought and paid for by money from organizations like the Joyce Foundation. I am not claiming that the internet is entirely free of people who attack the Second Amendment simply out of deeply held principles (muddled and twisted as those principles are), rather than for money, but the ratio of (unpaid) pro-rights bloggers to those who advocate citizen disarmament must be overwhelming. Not that there isn't interest on the other side to change that, but it almost certainly ain't gonna work.

So, with my limited writing skills, perhaps I could feed my ego better by trying to break into a vastly less crowded field--the whole ""big fish in a small pond" thing. I'd have to change the name of the blog, of course, and "Disarmed and Dependant on the State for my Defense--Who Needs a Silly Old Bill of Rights, Anyway?" is a bit awkward.

Hmm . . . after giving it some thought, this anti-rights blogging thing is harder than I'd thought--it takes a certain kind of genius to defend positions that are so . . . indefensible. Guess I'll have to stick with being a little fish in the big pond of gun rights advocacy.