If there’s one thing I hate it’s hypocrisy. Especially when someone takes issue with someone else doing what they, themselves do all the time is the epitome of hypocrisy to me. And yet, the gun control movement is filled with hypocrites.
For example, you’ll find plenty of people talking about how we need tighter restrictions on guns, only to find out they’re ignoring the laws in the first place. You’ll find them saying there are too many guns on the streets, only to find them owning guns. They’ll talk about how you need to turn in your guns, only for you to find out they have a carry permit.
Lots and lots of hypocrisy.
However, perhaps the most entertaining bit comes from an op-ed taking aim at a letter written by the majority of Washington state sheriffs.
All but two of Washington’s 39 county sheriffs on July 23 issued a proclamation affirming the U.S. Constitution and in particular supporting the Second Amendment. Every Southwest Washington county sheriff signed on, including Cowlitz County’s Brad Thurman and Lewis County’s Rob Snaza.
The document does not reference objections to any specific gun control measures.
The document, circulated by The Washington State Sheriffs’ Association, was “prompted by increasing public concern to safeguard constitutional rights.” The sheriffs, it says, have an “individual and collective duty to defend all of the constitutional rights of our citizens.”
“We understand the destructive influences currently existing in our country will only relent when women and men everywhere genuinely care for each other,” the document says. “We must rely on Providence and care deeply about preserving the Constitution and its freedom in order to be a strong and prosperous people.”
It calls the U.S. Constitution “divinely inspired.”
Only two sheriffs, King County’s Mitzi Johanknecht and Kitsap County’s Gary Simpson (who recently retired) declined to sign.
Now, so far, it’s just shaping up to be an op-ed disagreeing with the letter sent by these sheriffs. Nothing to really sweat over.
However, here’s where it gets good.
On the surface, the Washington proclamation sounds harmless and well-intentioned. There have been enough riots, shootings and tumult in this nation that we could use a good dose of brotherhood and sisterhood. I certainly agree that the Second Amendment is important, as are all rights, and that any new gun laws be crafted carefully not to infringe the rights of law-abiding people.
However, there are several troubling aspects of this resolution, including its appeal to emotion.
Excuse me? Appeals to emotion are a problem now?
For the gun control crowd, appeals to emotion are the bread and butter of how they try to gain attention. That’s why they trot out survivors and family members of people killed. These people have no real expertise on the broader policy implications. They’re brought in simply to appeal to people’s emotions.
That’s because emotion is powerful. We often make decisions based on emotion. It’s why gun control groups use such people because they know emotion works.
But is that just a one-way street? Are pro-Second Amendment folks simply required to sit down, shut up, and allow the gun control crowd to have the emotional arguments all to themself?
Sorry, but no.
What’s more, no one should be interested in the ramblings of a hypocritical op-ed writer who seems to think that appeals to emotion are a problem, but apparently only when the other side of the debate does it. I get that sometimes we don’t have the space to truly lay out our ideas in detail, but if you’re wasting some of that limited space on such a statement, it tells me you don’t really have much else going on in your argument.
Which, of course, he doesn’t.