Gun Rights Advocates: A Little Less Conversation A Little More Action Please


The term “assault rifle” does not apply to modern semi-automatic rifles. Technically. In popular parlance, it does. Thanks to the gun control industry and its media lapdogs, any black, scary-looking semi-automatic rifle is an assault rifle. Period. Building on that victory, exploiting the horror of the Sandy Hook massacre, gun control advocates are once again seeking to infringe upon on Americans’ Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms by manipulating the language. Led by the President of the United States (no less), they’re calling for a “conversation about guns.” Writing for The Atlantic, Conor Friedersdorf shines the cold light of truth on the gun control industry’s Orwellian suggestion . . .

In an Atlantic Wire post titled “It’s Time We Talked About Gun Control,” my sharp colleague Jen Doll writes, “We’re going to have to talk about this; we’re going to have to form coherent thoughts; and we’re going to have to stop simply cleaving to our agendas and our selfish little opinions of what we want and what we think we should have–and when ‘the right time is’–if this is ever going to get any better.” But that isn’t a call for a conversation! It’s an assertion that opponents of gun control are selfish, and that they (not “we”) are going to “have to” change their minds. It’s fine to make that argument. The problem is couching it as a mere call for talking, when it is in fact an assertion that the only reasonable conclusion is that the other guys are wrong.

As Friedersdorf points out, we, as a nation, have been talking about gun control for decades. We’ve been talking about it in our local, state and Congressional legislatures. We’ve been talking about it in our local, state and Supreme Court.

We’ve been talking about it down at the local gun range. We’ve been talking about it at the local gun store. We’ve been talking about it at the offices where we give our fingerprints to apply for a concealed carry permit.

We, as a nation, have decided that we want to defend, extend and exercise our Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.

Through the democratic and judicial process, we have rolled back gun control laws throughout the land. We have increased the availability of firearms to law-abiding Americans. We have purchased firearms in record numbers. We are carrying them on our person in record numbers.

The legislative, judicial and commercial trend towards restoring our gun rights is clear and unequivocal. So sure, we can talk about it. Why not? Here’s what U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert (Texas) had to say on Fox News Sunday.

“I wish to God (the principal) had had an M4 in her office, locked up, so when she heard gunfire she pulls it out … and takes him out, takes his head off before he can kill those precious kids.”

And here’s the text of a petition at the White House website called “A gun in every classroom. Arm every teacher and principal to defend themselves and their students during an attack.”

If teachers and principals are armed and trained to defend themselves during a school attack there would be fewer casualties and less attempts to attack schools.

Fact: Crime rates decrease when the people are better armed.

It is time we gave our teachers the ability to defend themselves and stop pretending like a door buzzer is enough of a defense. Take a stand for school safety. Arm the teachers and principals today. A gun in every classroom will protect our students from massacres like the one in CT today.

Not to pre-empt those who see disarmament as the most effective preventative measure against senseless slaughter or, indeed, criminal predation, but here’s the argument against arming teachers (as voiced by Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois): a gun in a classroom is an accident waiting to happen. It could be used against the teacher by a madman.

“That’s it?” my nine-year-old asked as she heard Durbin’s dismissal of the pro-gun perspective. “Accidents?” Lola quite rightly considered the “it can be used against you” concept as patently ridiculous. “If they’re coming for your gun, you should shoot them.”

I know people want to live in a world where nine-year-olds don’t discuss the best way to deal with an armed madman intent on mass slaughter. But that’s the world we live in. Ipso facto.

So if we’re going to have a “conversation” about gun control, let’s skip the bit where we talk about new laws. Despite the Second Amendment’s clear prohibition against infringement on the right to keep and bear arms, we’ve already got an enormous number of gun laws on the books.

Connecticut’s strict gun laws didn’t work. To think that a new or different or amended gun law would have prevented or minimized the Sandy Hook slaughter, that an assault weapon or “high capacity” magazine ban will prevent future Sandy Hooks, is dangerous delusion.

Even if new gun laws were the answer or even “an” answer to gun violence (they’re not), they’re a slow and expensive process. Let’s have a conversation about actions. What effective actions can we take now to keep our children, ourselves and our society safe?

We can harden security around our schools. We can re-examine our mental health care system. We can educate the general public to increase their situational awareness, so that we can all be on the lookout for murderous madmen. And here’s another idea . . .

We can make it easier for individuals to exercise their Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. The more people who keep and carry guns, the less likely a madman or criminal will want to attack them. The easier it will be to stop them if they attack.

The advantages of armed self-defense are so obvious that tens of millions of Americans have already decided to buy the most effective firearms they can find and afford. It’s one of the reasons Americans buy “assault rifles” and favor firearms that can hold plenty of bullets.

Let’s talk about that . . .