What’s more, they often use fear to justify these restrictions.

People such as this author, a Democratic Party Chair, who does precisely that.

In 1791 almost every household worldwide would have owned a firearm for hunting and defense in a time when grocery stores and civilian police protection largely did not exist. Following the Revolutionary War, “well-regulated militias” were a clear and present concern.

Now, 232 years later, the Second Amendment is cited as a right to self-defense. But if we’re so afraid of American society that we must arm ourselves at home, in public, in our places of worship and in our schools, that is not freedom. That is fear.

Some politicians parrot the line “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.” So why give people easy access to guns? They claim “bans don’t work,” but their attempts to ban abortion, drag shows, LGBTQ+ Americans, accurate Black history, and books show that is a blatant lie.

…

It is time to demand our more fundamental rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness cited in the Declaration of Independence. Our right to life supersedes the right to easy access to firearms everywhere we go. It is time to hold accountable all politicians signing bills with the NRA at their side, while offering nothing but repeated “thoughts and prayers” to the millions of Americans mourning the senseless and preventable loss of loved ones.

Let’s look at that last paragraph for a moment, in particular the part that says, “Our right to life supersedes the right to easy access to firearms everywhere we go.”

Now, let’s understand that the Declaration of Independence doesn’t have the force of law. The Constitution is what matters, and the Second Amendment is part of that, so even if the right to keep and bear arms somehow infringed on what the Declaration of Independence lays out, it wouldn’t matter.

But the thing is, the right to keep and bear arms, the freedom to protect ourselves, does not infringe on one’s right to live.

For all the pontification by the author claiming that all something like constitutional carry does is instill fear, she’s missing an important point: Bad people don’t follow the law. It’s those bad people who are causing the fear, and yet who does she seek to lash out at? The people who want to exercise their freedom.

Constitutional carry does not benefit criminals in any way, shape, or form. She laments that Florida’s concealed carry system is gone with it’s training mandates and additional background checks, but she fails to note that the criminals of the Sunshine State never went through any of that.

None.

The only people who did were the good guys who weren’t an issue in the first place. Those were the people whose lives were most in danger, too, it should be noted.

Constitutional carry, contrary to the author’s position, is actually about protecting life. Especially in Florida where the guns are required to be concealed–Florida’s law is more accurately a form of permitless carry, as opposed to constitutional carry since open carry is still forbidden, for the most part–and thus no one will ever see them.

Freedom matters, and yes, life matters. Yet here, freedom actually protects life.

That’s something someone like the author has to willfully ignore, even as she repeats the claim of numerous studies claiming otherwise–studies we know to be incredibly flawed and biased.

But some people would rather ignore reality than face it.