Despite claims to the contrary, gun rights advocates are a large and active voting block. There’s a reason lawmakers in pro-gun regions–regions that make up the bulk of the nation–make it a point to present their pro-gun credentials when running for office.
While polls occasionally claim most people support some kind of gun control, those polls rarely delve deeper into how important the issue is for those people. Most don’t so much support new regulations so much as think, “Yeah, sounds good.” In their minds, however, there are bigger issues to tackle and so they don’t care enough about gun control for it to make a difference in their voting.
Gun rights advocates are different. That is a major factor in our decision-making paradigm. We care and a candidates position on guns matters when it comes to which candidates to support.
But the media still wants to try and get gun rights advocates on their side, at least on some issues. They know that there’s little hope of getting their new regulations without some of us backing them, so they need to get us on board.
Among states that regulate retailers and how they store their firearms after hours, Pennsylvania has among the weakest regulations on the books, Sunday LNP reported Dec. 10. More than 70 handguns were stolen from Kinsey’s Outdoors in Mount Joy Township just last month. A 17-year-old boy was found to be carrying one of the guns stolen from Kinsey’s when he was stopped by police Dec. 8 in Baltimore after a fight. In Pennsylvania, there were 14 gun-store break-ins in 2016, up from 11 in 2012. Across the country, the number of burglaries grew 48 percent over the same time period, from 377 in 2012 to 558 last year, federal data show.
It seems virtually impossible for the two sides of the gun debate to agree on much of anything. The arguments are partisan, political and, most of the time, lead nowhere. But we believe we’ve found something about which even the most dedicated National Rifle Association member and fervent gun control advocate can agree:
It should be more difficult for criminals to get their hands on firearms.
This is a reasonable statement, something that yes, we can all agree on. Firearms in the hands of criminals are problematic on every level and no one supports criminals being armed.
It’s a good start, right?
Not really. It continues:
The headline in the Dec. 10 Sunday LNP read, “Why doesn’t Pennsylvania have tighter regulations on security at gun shops?”
That’s a really good question for which we don’t have an answer. Neither does anyone else.
The only provision in Pennsylvania law is that retailers store guns in such a way that they are not visible from outside their businesses, LNP staff writer Lindsey Blest reported.
And a bank robber doesn’t need to see piles of cash displayed in a bank window to know there’s money inside.
In other words, they’re pushing for regulations that will create a burden on gun stores. They’re framing it as if it’s something we, as a community, should support.
To an extent, they’re not wrong.
I do support gun stores increasing security of their inventory and taking steps to minimize theft. I do believe that stores that sell firearms need to make it difficult, if not impossible, for thieves to steal guns from their stores.
But I don’t support laws that require it.
Laws issue requirements for people to do and not do certain things. In this case, it would mandate a store take on a burden that will invariably be financial–either more manpower to lock weapons in a safe or increased spending to secure the weapons in place–regardless of their ability to pay for such things.
This may have a negative impact on the pure number of gun stores as some may be forced out of business by the new regulation.
The trick here is to present this is a safety issue, that’s there’s no downside for gun rights advocates to support new regulations for gun stores. After all, don’t we all agree that we need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?
Yet there’s no commentary on alternative options, ones that don’t place burdens on gun stores. Instead, they simply outline how one store does it voluntarily. However, they also use the word “elaborate” to describe the process and thus tip their hand too soon.
Of course it’s elaborate. Any such scheme would have to be elaborate, and we all know it. But by explaining it as elaborate, they accidentally make it clear that it’s a burden for stores.
Not that they acknowledge that. The anti-gun media doesn’t really care about burdens for gun stores, most of which are small businesses owned by men and women who support and defend the Constitution, not the latest Marxist nonsense spreading through liberal circles. They don’t mind these men and women losing everything.
I can’t speak for all gun rights activists on this, but I sure do. I’ve lost a business. I know how devastating it can be. I can only imagine how it would be to lose it to burdensome regulations pushed by the liberal intelligentsia as a means to make them feel better about themselves.
But some gun rights advocates might just fall for it.
Don’t let them trick you on something like this. It’s just a different kind of gun control, no different than trying to tell you how to secure your firearms. For many who support this, that’s next on the agenda. Make no mistake.
Don’t give them one more inch.