I wasn’t originally going to do anything tonight, so I guess this is as good a thing to do as any. I’m poking around back on Yahoo!’s front-page when I notice an article about the “new face of gun-control”. The article was about Richard Martinez; a father, who lost his son to the ministries of a mad-man in Isla Vista, California, one week ago (23 May). In the article, I happened to notice Martinez’s profession. He’s a criminal defense attorney, apparently. A criminal defense attorney, mourning his son and talking about an organization (the NRA) who’s out to protect peoples’ firearms rights and questions them with “…what about Chris’s right to live?” The man obviously doesn’t understand putting down violent criminals in a very permanent manner. I’m going to let you have at that, as you see fit, but I’m not going to bother.
I was intrigued by the finding and decided to search the topic a little. I found a fresh article out of Indiana about one of their lawmakers defending firearms and stating a number of truths, but because he was speaking on the record to a left-leaning newspaper, he wasn’t going to win any friends. Nor was he winning many friends with his comments on Facebook, as they mentioned.
The IndyStar’s columnist, in question, criticized IN-state Rep. Jim Lucas, R-Seymour, blatantly. However, that’s nothing new and it’s definitely not the point. Tully went back and forth between covering Martinez and Lucas. The thing about it is, he’s a left-leaning man who has no bearing. I read an article earlier today, which was perfectly titled “gun control advocates demand more, but offer nothing”. And, that, is pretty much the perfected period to the end of the sentence on what Tully had to say. That is what I will, as well.
Lucas and I have talked at length about our deep disagreements when it comes to gun policy. I believe stronger background checks would help, as would an all-out crackdown on the illegal possession of guns and dealers who sell a disproportionate number of the guns used in criminal acts. I believe we should look at the horrific violence that grips many cities, such as Indianapolis, and consider it a crisis. I don’t believe that longer waiting periods, restrictions on assault weapons or limits on the number of weapons a person can buy in a month or year infringe on constitutional rights.
So, I love anti-gunners who aren’t in the closet. The reason why is because this guy has the cojones to state what he wants, unlike the majority of left-leaning politicians currently filling seats in the United States. This guy is the reason why the NRA sends out newsletters claiming of firearms bans and NRA-ILA paperwork with pleas to send money in to cover the costs of fighting them. I’m not sure if he wrote the article in a fit of anger (which is a factor not to be discredited), but he was very impassioned and to the point. However, He made a critical mistake in the first bolded line.
Who are these dealers that sell “disproportionate number of guns used in criminal acts” and to what relation does it have to the Isla Vista issue? The hopelessly single, virgin — who thought he was owed the world — psycho went out and legally bought one handgun at one FFL. He, then, repeated this two more times, and it ended with him having three handguns. Legally. Moreover, his exact sentence was “and dealers who sell a disproportionate number of the guns used in criminal acts”. Who are these dealers? Moreover, if these existed, how are you going to stop these “dealers” if you have to wait until AFTER the criminal acts happen? I rest my case…
Now, before I get to the crowning jewel of the article, I want to make a disclaimer. I am not a paying supporter of NRA. The closest I get to being a supporter of the NRA is reading the magazines from a subscription, that is not mine, and the outright support for Colion Noir. However, I was a supporter of Noir long before he was hired as a speaker for the NRA. I do not support the NRA, or any of the other gun rights groups specifically, because their infighting is like watching Democratic and Republican presidential candidates fighting it out before the elections. But, unlike the Democrats and Republicans, the NRA and GOA (among others) each fight for the same thing, but they can’t fight for that one thing in unity? Alright, then.
So, here’s the gem.
If our nation took gun violence more seriously, if our politicians didn’t bow to the extremists at the NRA, if we remembered that great nations can tackle great problems sensibly, if we worked harder to make sure people who shouldn’t have guns didn’t have them, and if gun-rights advocates would encourage smart debates rather than work furiously to shut them down, then perhaps we would be able to save some lives.
1. Our politicians “bow to extremists at the NRA”? Who are these extremists? I’ll tell you, Wayne LaPierre has, recently, been really weak. He’s not even close to Charles Heston and there’s been a lot of “I this, I that” in his speeches over the last few years. Dudley Brown, of the NAGR, on the other hand, stated; “We’re not afraid to be called radicals on the gun issue, because that’s what we are”. That’s way to harsh and not anywhere near being true, in my mind. We’re not on the level of being ‘extremists’ realistically, regardless of what the left-wing has to say. And, saying that? It’s not impressive, it’s not professional.
With that said, the total of members in the major gun-rights organizations may touch ten-million people. However, that means nothing. I am the perfect example of how the NRA membership count, potentially being five-million, means nothing. I’m the oldest son, in a family of four. Every single one of us supports the NRA, but we’re not all going to hold memberships and receive four of the same magazine every month. The membership counts mean nothing.
Which leads us to the liberals’ “gremlins” or “bogeymen”, so to speak. Who are these people that are “bullying” our politicians? At last check, which was the 2012 election year when I entered a voting booth for the first time (and voted in favor of the Louisiana SB303, the state constitution’s own 2A bill), the PEOPLE voted the politicians into those seats.
That’s, potentially, a very dangerous outlook for the future. What’s not made obvious is the level of clarity that fact is to the people like Matthew Tully. The level of potential danger was made clear, on the 28th, when the extent Directive No. 3025.18 was seen. The People stood up against our Federal government’s overstep, during the Bundy Ranch Standoff, and the President actually contemplated using “federal military force” to “quell the scenario”.
But, the point is that the average American family is comprised of roughly three to four people. So, you take that five-million NRA members and do the math; based on the probably of the entirety of that family, or 75-percent of that family, being engaged in the same activity. The same goes for NAGR, GOA, and all of the rest of the gun-rights groups. And, then, remember all of those people, like myself, who aren’t affiliated with a gun-rights group past a Facebook ‘Like’.
That’s a lot of people… excuse me, ‘bogeymen’.
2. “If gun-rights advocates would encourage smart debates rather than … shut them down”? That is one hell of a jump, all things considered. Tully also forgot to mention “the left-wing’s version of a smart debate”. Why, and with what evidence, do I say this?
Name for me, if you will, a moment in any anti-gun group’s history where they taught the Manual of Arms to people? I’ll wait, but the crickets won’t. You can’t. However, before I was even born, in 1988 the NRA came up with the Eddie Eagle GunSafe Program to teach children about firearms safety. MAIG/EFGS (Everytown for Gun Safety)? Nope. MDA? Nope. Thinking about it now, referring to MDA as ‘Mommies for Bangstick Logic’ — while hilariously funny — kind of gives them recognition for something they’ve never done… Actually teaching people about firearms knowledge. All we’ve seen? A lot of soap-box standing, grave-site dancing there — to be blunt about it.
(NOTE: you can also look up Refuse To Be A Victim classes/seminars, if you wish to Google around)
You can contact a friend of mine and ask him how long it took us to find an important, named anti-gunner calling for another Assault Weapons Ban after the Sandy Hook School Shooting. How long? Roughly twelve- to thirteen-minutes after. But, the NRA is the bad guy, even though they took a week — shutting everything down — to mourn that event before even talking about anything, let alone countering the AGers.
Which leads us to carrying a firearm (in any capacity) and dropping the Gun-Free Zones that encompass all of these places where the wholesale slaughters have taken place. That’s not an appropriate argument? That’s not a smart debate? They don’t count as talking points? And, because of that, “shut down” all of their “debates”. More background checks, bans on weapons, magazines and accessories (see; inanimate objects) and so on.
See, long before I was born, carrying a firearm around wasn’t an issue. There wasn’t a Concealed or an Open Carry. There was just carrying a firearm and nobody really bothered freaking out, because it was normal! Now, today, it’s far more appalling to see a firearm being open carried than it is to see a person texting on their cellphone while driving a motor vehicle! How in the hell does that make sense?
The liberal consensus is nothing new. The left-wing’s lack of paying attention to laws, that were passed by their own in certain states, is nothing new. But, it’s OK. As long as you’re only defending your right to own a bolt-action hunting rifle or an over-under duck hunting shotgun or single-barrel turkey shotgun — for now — you’re good in their eyes. And, all of the rest of us? Whether or not they’ll admit it, or even know it.
We’re their ‘bogeymen’.