Mission statement:

Armed and Safe is a gun rights advocacy blog, with the mission of debunking the "logic" of the enemies of the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

I can be reached at 45superman@gmail.com.You can follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/45superman.

Friday, July 04, 2008

Defense of rights 'misses the point,' according to citizen disarmament advocate

Robert C. Koehler apparently believes that the reason for the rancor between gun rights advocates on the one hand, and advocates of forcible citizen disarmament on the other, is that gun rights advocates won't . . . shut up and stop advocating for gun rights. First, though, presumably in the interests of fostering a less divisive atmosphere, he generously "conceded" a couple points.

I’m willing to concede two points to the gun owners: One, the bureaucracy of gun control stirs up the same resentment and defiance that Prohibition did and such legislation applied too broadly and indiscriminately is likely unworkable; and two, the key to safety is empowerment, both collective and individual.
Nice of him, eh? If you're interested in seeing how he thinks people are "empowered," by being forcibly disarmed, you'll have to follow the link--his "argument" isn't worth my time. As to this part--" . . . such legislation applied too broadly and indiscriminately is likely unworkable"--how does one apply restrictions on a right that shall not be infringed without doing so "too broadly and indiscriminately"? I might also point out that as unworkable and flat out immorally repressive as Prohibition was, at least it wasn't a direct attack on the palladium of liberty.
And here we get at the essence of the clog. America’s gun subculture affects to be participating in the dialogue, but is in fact merely advancing an agenda.
When two opposing sides engage in debate over the issue of contention, how can they do so and not "advance an agenda"? Here's one of his examples of gun rights advocates insensitively "advancing their agenda":
This is not a serious comment on crime or violence, but it’s a hell of a distraction — on the order of the “vigil” held by gun-rights advocates outside Columbine High School shortly after the massacre there, while President Clinton was inside meeting with students. According to news reports at the time, they held up bright yellow signs reading “Gun Control Kills Kids” and “We Will Never Give Up Our Guns,” seemingly oblivious to the deep inappropriateness of such a political intrusion on the process of mourning and healing.
Gee, Bob--remember when Representative Carolyn "What's a barrel shroud?" McCarthy introduced H.R. 1859 (to mandate reduced capacity magazines), before the last body was hauled out of Virginia Tech? Tell me, Bob--was that "participating in the dialogue," or "advancing an agenda"?
All this said, I return to the crying need in this country for a dialogue and soul-searching about who we are. The “debate” over gun control really has only one side, those who are against it. Their passionate faith in guns to protect them is not matched by opponents who just as passionately despise guns and want them all confiscated.
The fact that we care more about defending our Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental, absolute human right of the individual to keep and bear arms, more than advocates of forcible citizen disarmament care about violating that right should tell you something, Bob. It should tell you that America--even the dumbed down, American Idol watching, fat, lazy America of today--is still a land where there is greater passion for defending liberty than there is for crushing it.

If that ever changes, may we be swept from the Earth and replaced by something better, nobler, braver, and more honorable.

Happy Independence Day.


B Smith said...

'If that ever changes, may we be swept from the Earth and replaced with something better, nobler, braver, and more honorable.
Happy Independence Day.'

Amen, brother.

MadRocketScientist said...

Another idealist opinion written by a man who can afford security at the end of someone else's gun.

Happy 4th!

Anonymous said...

'But not even Antonin Scalia is that crazy. “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited,” he wrote for the majority. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”'

Alan Gura made a similar point when responding to criticisms from the Tireless Minority. Those who have been convicted of a crime will certainly have their right to arms curtailed while in prison; yes, there are some instances where one's constitutionally-guaranteed rights may legally be limited by the federal government. It should be understood, however, that this follows due process and is limited to the duration of the punishment.

Isn't it a bit circular to cite a free man for some violation of an unconstitutional restriction on his right to keep and bear, then use this as reason to disarm him forever? Yes, it is. It appears that this one exception is being used by disarmers to force prior restraints on the people, effectively making all of them guilty of crimes, and punished for the duration of their lives.

Mr. Koehler said:
"Our passion is for an end to violence and the building of a culture of trust, part of which includes sensible and workable gun laws."

Unfortunately, attempts at this type of social engineering have largely been a failure; the disarmament movement has mostly punished the innocent while violent crime rates rise and fall for reasons we have yet to fully comprehend. The most rigid dictatorships in history failed to completely reprogram human nature. Stop with the social engineering, already.