Anti-gun control is pro-mass shooting.
Yes, I said it. From Columbine to Sandy Hook to Odessa, the topic of gun control is always brought up when a mass shooting happens — and then forgotten. When I see my cousin calling Beto O’Rourke a moron for wanting to buy back assault weapons, I know that in her mind, that makes sense. But what does not make sense to me is how it is ok for large amounts of lives to be taken, but it’s not for her friend’s uncle’s feeble gun collection, which he has saved for the “end days,” to possibly be confiscated.
A bit alarmist, no? Well, maybe what alarms some is making a dent in their weak American pride vs. the preservation of innocent human lives.
I’m just going to get this first point out of the way. Many times conservatives in our LGBTQ community and people like Fox News commentator Tomi Lahren believe that a “good guy with a gun” can stop a bad guy with a gun. But any time there is a mass shooting, where is this super ’Merican to save the day?
Nowhere to be seen. Why? Because they don’t exist. Neither does the logic of having a gun to save you from someone else with a gun.
I recently read a story of a little boy in Florida who got choked with a shoestring at his bus stop. This was an innocent child who did nothing to deserve such an assault, and his outraged mother understandably took to Facebook to speak out against bullying.
But then she says, “Everyone keeps screaming about the problem being a gun problem, but the issue is much deeper; it is a mental health problem!” I disagree.
I mean, it’s too bad the boy didn’t have an extra shoelace to defend himself with, right? And no, I don’t actually think that; I’m just using the good guy/bad guy logic anti-gun control brethren use.
Also, I’d like to note that if this boy’s assailant was as disturbed as the mother is making him out to be, this child’s life was probably saved by the fact that the bully didn’t have access to a gun. As traumatic of an experience I’m sure this was the boy who was attacked, at least he still has a chance at a full life; he has a chance to recover — unlike those children who have died at the hands of mass shooters.
Yes, everyone knows there is a mental health problem in the U.S. This is why we are advocating for better gun safety measures, including universal background checks, the thing private sellers and gun shows definitely don’t do.
The Odessa-Midland shooter used the private seller method to evade a background check. Even if all the automatic rifles were bought up, he still would’ve had access to even the smallest handgun that could have resulted in the 17-month-old getting shot in the face. This is a direct result of not only lenient gun laws but gun access.
One might say universal background checks are the solution, so everyone should still be able to sell their AR-15s. Who actually needs such a gun? Sure, they can be cool; as a kid, I shot rifles and went to the gun range with my dad, so I can see why someone would want to upgrade to something more hardcore. They don’t need it though, just like millionaires and billionaires don’t need private jets, although I could see why anyone would want one.
But American lawmakers should not prioritize some people’s desire to have a semi-automatic assault-style rifle for the cool factor of it over the safety of the population.
Many times, conservatives oppose gun control with the claim of being “pro-rights.” Let’s not forget that there are restrictions on free speech when that speech can cause harm. In Schenck v. United States (1919), Justice Holmes wrote, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic…. The question in every case is whether the words used … create a clear and present danger.”
So then why should we allow the argument of protecting the Second Amendment right to bear arms to also protect someone causing panic and presenting a clear and present danger?
In other words, why should we allow someone to obtain an object which statistically causes a higher chance of harm? The answer is, we shouldn’t.
On average, 100 Americans are killed by guns in a single day. There have been only six known deaths total regarding e-cigs/vapes and our president has already, within a day of this story breaking, using the FDA to ban this product. So the selfish hero fantasy which comes along with the rabid loyalty to “core American values” is really just being ok with murder as long as it involves a gun. Ultimately, being anti-gun control, inherently, admit it or not, is basically an approval of all the mass shootings which have occurred in the United States.
Joey Moreno is a local artist/author working on his first novel. He serves on the Stonewall Democrats of Dallas Voter Registration Committee and volunteers for the Bernie Sanders campaign..
OK fair enough. But if anti-gun-control is pro murder, than so is pro choice, after all, one is STILL killing another human being.
“But American lawmakers should not prioritize some people’s desire to have a semi-automatic assault-style rifle for the cool factor of it over the safety of the population.” Yes–I agree completely. Besides that, sensible people don’t start negotiating by asking the rock-bottom minimum they want. They start by asking or demanding more than they think they can possibly get and that gives them wiggle room. Beto, of course, knows this. If you start with a demand that seems outrageous to opponents (i.e., a mandatory confiscation of assault weapons), you thereby automatically make a government buy-back of guns that’s voluntary seem more palatable by comparison.
And as for the ridiculous argument some people are making that Beto’s idea will destroy all the “bipartisan” efforts at gun control; WHAT bipartisan efforts? Republicans have no intention of doing anything on gun control until and unless public opinion is so forceful that they feel they have no choice.
How ironic that those who are calling for gun control are those who want the guns so they can have the control. It is of interest to the American people to take note of those who they entrust to serve them.
Law abiding citizens believe in the NATURAL right to bear arms in defense of ourselves, our family, our community and our nation. The Second Amendment exists to PROTECT that right from government infringement. The writers of the Bill of Rights understood that governments and politicians throughout history cannot seem to resist the urge to take power to themselves, at the expense of the people they are supposed to govern. This is why they insisted that the Bill of Rights be included in the Constitution, to ensure that the government knew not only what it was created to do, but those specific things it was NOT ALLOWED to do. Our government was unique at the time, a government created BY the people and for the benefit of the people, not a government that RULED the people.
Interestingly, and I know you will disagree, gun owners really aren’t that stupid. The whole “slippery slope” thing….. we give an inch they take a mile….we won’t take your guns! Until you do. We also understand the art of negotiation and the crafty ness of liberals…… but any compromise will lead to exactly the stated endpoint, confiscation] of all guns. You offer AR-15 confiscation, negotiate to no-further sales and registration of existing AR-15s… sounds reasonable so we agree…. the following year or election cycle or whatever incident happens….you outlaw those weapons completely then use registration to identify owners and seize guns. Happens in NYC, happens in CA. So no, we stand firm. And unless and until you come up with a way of getting weapons away from the criminal element, I will stand my ground.
LOVED your comment Bill. Nice to see someone on here who gets it. Great writing!
Heller torpedoed the Democrats’ gun control push, and New York State Rifle and Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York will sink it for good. What Robert “fake hispanic” O’Rourke torpedoed was Democrats’ chances of winning Congress and the White House in 2020. Give President Trump a second term, and a friendly Senate GOP majority, and we might just replace two, even three more leftist Justices with pro-gun constitutionalists on the Supreme Court. Then we can start rolling back the gun laws of the last century, and set precedents to keep our Second Amendment safe for our children and grandchildren.
For those unfamiliar with the upcoming case, due to be heard soon, I highly recommend you read the GOA’s amicus brief (PDF link) outlining the stakes, and explaining how the Supreme Court might get the lower courts to finally rule on Second Amendment cases the way they’re supposed to, under Heller and the text of the Constitution. It’s very telling that New York City, and various left-wing anti-gun groups have desperately and repeatedly tried to moot the case, and begged the court to either not hear the case at all, or rule on it so narrowly as to be irrelevant. US Senators even filed an amicus brief threatening to pack the Supreme Court with more far-left justices if they rule as the law says they should instead of ruling based on leftist emotions. The Left are terrified of the Supreme Court issuing a textualist ruling on this case.
Here’s hoping Chief Justice Roberts is so infuriated at the Democrats’ blatant attempt at court intimidation, and the lower courts repeated ignoring of the spirit (and really the text) of the Heller ruling, that he’s fully on-board with what I know Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh are telling him to do, which is issue a broad, originalist Second Amendment ruling that creates a clear three-part test for all gun law cases in the future.
1) Does the 2nd Amendment protect the plaintiff? The 2nd Amendment clearly protects the rights of the People, so if the plaintiff is a member of the polity, they are protected. Not everyone is protected: children and prisoners serving their sentences wouldn’t be, for example.
2) Does the item being regulated constitute an “arm”. Heller ruled that all firearms are “arms”.
3) Does the law regulate the “keeping” or “bearing” of “arms”? Heller was also very clear on what constitutes “keeping” and “bearing” and distinguished the two as separate rights. “Keeping” means being able to own. “Bearing” means being able to carry the lawfully owned arm anywhere for a lawful purpose. Only someplace like a government building would have superior proprietary rights.
If the answer to all three questions is “yes”, the law would then have to be struck down.