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.