It’s not unusual to look at your political opposition and not understand how anyone could rationally decide to support the other side of a discussion. After all, when you study the issue and come to a conclusion, it’s difficult to believe someone could come to a different conclusion. Sometimes, it’s because they don’t understand all the facts, but sometimes it’s because they did.
However, it’s a grave mistake to assume people disagree with you because they don’t understand, especially when the subject of gun rights arises.
Yet that’s precisely what one gun-control activist alleges is driving the push to defend our Second Amendment rights.
Linda Brundage, the executive director of the Michigan Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence, told Stateside that she thinks much of the outrage about gun control legislation stems from a misunderstanding about what those laws would do.
“I think it’s really unfortunate that it’s so divisive. And what that suggests to me is people are not talking to one another,” she said. “The gun industry is selling fear so that people believe they must be armed. Again, nobody wants to take away guns.”
Brundage argues that red flag laws aren’t about taking away people’s guns but about “safety.”
“And it seems like, you know, this effort in Michigan, at this present time, is designed to prevent the passage of this legislation, these kinds of legislations. And from our perspective, that’s unfortunate because we know they will save lives.”
So, basically, Brundage thinks we only oppose these laws because we’re too damn stupid to understand what it’s really about.
The problem is, Brundage doesn’t understand where our opposition comes from in the case of red flag laws. First, yes, they are about taking guns from people. Such laws are explicitly about taking guns from people. In particular, people who haven’t broken any laws. A red flag law allows anyone from a list of folks–a list that can be gamed, as we’ve seen before–to petition for someone to lose their guns before a judge who has never laid eyes on the individual in question, knows nothing about them but what’s being told to them by the petitioner, and then reaches a decision to disarm someone who doesn’t get to defend themselves until well after the fact.
Oh, we understand these laws quite well.
Brundage, however, doesn’t seem to understand these laws or our opposition to them. Based on her comments about these laws and the gun industry supposedly pushing people to think they must be armed, it’s clear that the only one operating in ignorance is Linda Brundage.
She’s ignorant of how red flags can be abused and, as already noted, how they already have been.
She’s ignorant of how despite claims that they’ll reduce suicides, they seem to be having the opposite effect.
She’s ignorant of the fact that there are already mechanisms available for those who represent a threat to themselves or others.
All of this she’s apparently ignorant of. So much so, in fact, that she thinks she has a complete handle on the issue and assumes everyone who disagrees with her is too stupid to understand the truth.
Well, Linda, we do. We grasp it in ways you can’t comprehend.
You can’t seem to comprehend that telling people they’re stupid and don’t understand the issue isn’t exactly an effective way to change minds. Then again, gun-grabbers generally seem to run off emotion rather than facts anyway. Now we see why.