"Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry." - Thomas Jefferson
The gun control lobby in this country has been on the ropes for years. All across the nation, one legislative and judicial victory after another on both the State and federal levels is notched in the belts of those Americans supporting their 2nd Amendment Rights. From the US Supreme Court's double rulings in Heller and McDonald in support of every common, law-abiding citizen's individual right to keep and bear arms to the overwhelming victories gun rights supporters won during the November 2010 midterm elections, it seems that those in the gun control lobby just can't catch a break. And yet, despite the pummeling that they are being dealt on every front, these anti-gunners just can't seem to figure out why it is that they have lost touch with the American public.
While the reasons for their inability to captivate their audience are many, one of the primary factors involved in their fall from grace is profoundly simple--hypocrisy. In one high-profile example after another, prominent gun control advocates are caught preaching about the limitations that should be imposed on the law-abiding, general public's right to own and carry guns while being called out in embarrassing public revelations where they are found to be personally practicing that which they are condemning. While the do-as-I-say-and-not-as-I-do approach might be acceptable to the gun control lobby's minority hoplophobe base, it is completely unacceptable to the independent mind of the critical-thinking individuals that form the collective body of the American public.
A perfect example of this phenomenon of gun control hypocrisy would be the recently introduced SB 610 in the California State Legislature. SB 610 would effectively make concealed carry laws in California "shall-issue" for State and US legislators and no one else. In response to the Tuscon tragedy, lawmakers all over the country are trying to pass legislation that would give them special treatment and protections that their constituents would not enjoy. Now, this trend has reached the Capitol in California. In this Los Angeles Times opinion piece, the author correctly calls out three Democrat State Senators who have voted in support of gun control bills in the past but somehow manage to believe that they should be afforded special rights to self-protection that the people they serve apparently do not deserve. This is exactly the type of thinking that would rub critical-thinking voters the wrong way. If these California State Legislators want to afford themselves concealed carry permits for self-protection, then the right approach would be to introduce legislation to change the "may-issue" (which, in practice amounts to will-not-issue-under-any-circumstances for the urban areas of the State) CCW laws in California to "shall-issue", where every common, law-abiding Californian who has not been adjudicated in a court of law to be mentally ill must be granted a concealed carry permit for the valid reason of lawful self-defense if he or she applies for one and meets the standardized training criteria. This would allow those politicians to protect both themselves and the constituents they serve. The fact that these State politicians wish to create an exclusive class of citizenry that holds them in higher regard than the public masters who placed them in office is both hypocritical and runs contrary to our country's Constitutional principles.
But then again, the thinking behind these anti-gun State politicians should really come as no surprise. Theirs is a pattern that has a long history in the annals of gun control lore. After all, it was only this past Sunday that President Obama engaged in demonstrating this same double-standard regarding the national gun control issue. In his Op-Ed in the Arizona Daily Star, the President calls for additional gun control measures in the wake of the Tuscon tragedy while completely ignoring the fact that his Administration is currently under heavy attack for an international gun-running scandal headed by the BATFE called "Project Gunrunner" that cost at least one US Border Patrol agent and a significant number of Mexican nationals their lives.
Meanwhile, stalwarts in the gun control lobby such as Dianne Feinstein have long felt very comfortable leading a political life of anti-gun hypocrisy. While she condemns gun ownership and Right-to-Carry laws for common, law-abiding citizens across the country, she freely admits to carrying a concealed handgun of her own for self-protection. Apparently, the good Senator believes that while her own safety may be at risk while under the death threats made by a terrorist organization, the lives of her female constituents who have been threatened by former boyfriends or stalkers don't deserve the same level of consideration in regards to the right to self-defense that she does.
But Dianne Feinstein is hardly alone. North Carolina State Senator, R. C. Soles, one of the most staunch gun control advocates in his State's Legislature, actually went so far as to use his firearm in claimed self-defense at his Tabor City house against two home intruders. Apparently, Senator Soles believes that his right to own a gun for self-defense supersedes those of his constituents who clearly do not deserve the right to use their own lawfully-owned firearms for the exact same purpose.
Or, even beyond the anti-gun politicians, the gun control lobby's most prominent public figures, such as Rosie O'Donnell, have taken to the pulpit with loud public statements decrying the private ownership of firearms by common, law-abiding citizens. Yet, O'Donnell is perfectly comfortable hiring a bodyguard who applied for a concealed carry permit to protect her and her children. The funny thing is, when the front pages of Connecticut's The Advocate and Greenwich Time called her out on the carpet for this double standard, her spokeswoman at the time, Jennifer Glaisek, could do nothing other than attempt to dance around the issue. One can only logically draw one conclusion from O'Donnell's actions. Apparently, Rosie O'Donnell and her children's lives are worth more than the average, law-abiding citizen's in this country. She and her children deserve 2nd Amendment protections that the rest of the American people clearly do not.
So, as the reader can clearly see, the shattered state of the gun control lobby is really no one's fault but their own. When the anti-gun movement's leaders cannot even manage to practice what they preach, how can they expect those in the general public to lend their cause any credibility? What the gun control lobby doesn't seem to understand is actually profoundly simple. Americans in general are an independent, critical-thinking group of self-actualized individuals who believe in the time-honored concept of leadership by example. We generally pay attention to, and are willing to entertain the musings of those who are, on the most basic level, able to walk their own talk. Such was the case with our nation's Founders, who believed in the cause of freedom so much that they effectively inspired our fellow countrymen to their cause by signing their own death warrants in boldly placing their names on the Declaration of Independence. Theirs was the standard of politics and, more importantly, statesmanship, that all future generations of American leaders would be judged against. And when it comes to the those who would consider themselves leaders in the gun control lobby, it is blatantly obvious that they fall glaringly short of this proud American standard.
Comments