AP Photo/Lisa Marie Pane, File
In my perfect world, no one is anti-gun. People understand that firearms are an essential means of self-defense, and not just from criminals but also tyrants. The term “gun safety advocate” would be someone who talked about the need to follow safety rules, lock your guns up when unneeded, and possibly push for gun safety courses in public schools.
But, we don’t get to live in that world. We’re stuck with this one where some people are anti-gun.
Now, some I understand. They’re emotional over it. Maybe they lost someone. Either way, they’re not able to think clearly on the topic of guns, so emotion drives them.
However, after reading this column this morning, I also had to remember that apparently, some are anti-gun because they’re just stupid.
Dana Loesch is described as an American conservative, commentator, talk radio host and spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association. Her response to the tragedy in New Zealand was even more tragic.
The prime minister of New Zealand pledged to enact extraordinary restrictions on the purchase of assault weapons in her country. This followed the horrific outbreak of gun violence that killed some 50 Muslims whose only sin was observing their midday prayers.
How did Ms. Loesch respond? She was quick to parrot the NRA mantra: “The U.S. isn’t New Zealand. They do not have an inalienable right to bear arms and to self-defense — we do.”
Apparently the NRA and its spokespeople flunked junior high social studies.
Now, I’m going to interrupt here for a moment because, well, I think it’s important. Mostly because it’s nice to point out when someone claims another has “flunked junior high social studies” only to betray their own ignorance.
See, the writer goes on:
There is no such thing as an “inalienable right to bear arms.” Absolutely none. In the Declaration of Independence, it clearly states: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
The reader, Loesch and the NRA will note that the so-called “right to bear arms” is nowhere mentioned nor is it described as unalienable. Because it is not. And never was.
Which stands to reason. After all, the Declaration of Independence is a foundational document for this country, but it’s not the law. You’re also not going to find any laws encoded in its text. You’re just not.
But the writer doesn’t stop there. Oh no. It gets better.
The Constitution of the United States was ratified on June 21, 1788. As originally written and approved, no mention whatsoever was made of “unalienable rights” and there was never any guarantee of a so-called “right to bear arms.”
The preamble to the Constitution reads, “We the people of the United States in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution …”
God is not relied upon to form a “more perfect union.” That burden is placed squarely upon the shoulders of the people of the United States. They not only assume the responsibility for justice, tranquility, defense, and the general welfare, but it is clearly stated that this will be done under the terms of, and in adherence to, the Constitution, i.e. the law of the land.
No, but anyone who has educated themselves beyond left-wing anti-gun talking points understands that the Founding Fathers believed in a concept called “natural rights.” These were rights they argued were granted by God and that government had no authority to override. If you’re an unbelieving sort, then think of them as the rights you’re born with by virtue of being alive.
That the Founders didn’t mention God specifically in the Constitution is irrelevant. It’s a red herring trotted out by a progressive talking head with delusions of grandeur to deflect from the fact that he/she/it doesn’t have a clue what they’re talking about.
Guns and an armed society are not viewed as offering a legitimate pathway for the pursuit of happiness.
I don’t know. Millions of readers of Bearing Arms, for example, disagree. I’m able to pursue my happiness because I don’t have to worry that someone might decide to break into my home and terrorize my family all because I had no means to defend myself.
Frankly, my enjoyment of shooting alone could be argued to be a legitimate pathway for the pursuit of happiness.
What the writer means is that guns and an armed society make them unhappy. Thus the right isn’t legitimate.
Honestly, it keeps going on and on, with inane rhetoric that shows a profound lack of understanding of the Constitution, American history, or rational thought.
Toward the end, it’s all summed up with this:
The point? Simply this. If we are to enter into a meaningful dialogue about firearms and the potential threat they represent to the domestic tranquility, then we must agree to give up the twisted and distorted rhetoric of extreme right-wing conservatives.
“Shut up,” she explained.
My point? Simply this. If we are to enter into a meaningful dialogue about firearms and the people who misuse them and the threat they represent to the domestic tranquility, then we must agree to give up radical progressive talking points that distort both history and reality.