Strange but true, Mike Rosen is on our side. The following editorial appeared in today's Gazette (Colo Spgs).
Mike Rosen: Gun control issue must be debated on its merits
Predictably, the Columbine tragedy has reenergized the local and national debate on gun control. Letters-to-the-editors pages are overflowing with passionate debaters on both sides. The vehemence of the opposing viewpoints is a measure of the irreconcilable differences between the parties involved.
In this firefight, gun owners are armed with reason and the Constitution - federal and state. Gun controllers and would-be confiscators, on the other hand, have
immersed themselves in emotion and self-righteousness. Gun owners seek to protect something tangible: their Second Amendment guarantee of the right to bear
arms, and with it the ability to defend themselves, if necessary, through their own efforts. They also understand that the founders designed the Second Amendment as
a check on potentially oppressive government, especially federal government. The assurance that the Bill of Rights would include just such an amendment was necessary to win constitutional ratification from the legislatures of the original 13 states.
The anti-gun crowd sees little merit in the Second Amendment. Since they don't intend to exercise it, they're more than willing to give up their right to bear arms, especially if they can deny that right to everyone else. Gun control utopians just want the nasty things to go away. Once law-abiding citizens have surrendered their guns, these wishful thinkers sincerely hope that criminals can be disarmed, as well. Hoping tends to be a major element of their public policy agenda. They see no virtue in an armed citizenry as a deterrent to oppressive government precisely because they have unbridled confidence in government activism. They crave new laws
and regulations, at any price, to reduce risk and make us all safer. For them, the promise of safety trumps freedom. These are the kind of people who revel in the plea: "Even if it would save only one life, wouldn't it be worth it?" (The rational answer to which is usually, "no.") Passing a law, to them, is like a religious experience. They take it on faith that even the most impractical law will produce the desired outcome. It doesn't matter that they've passed a bad law, if the act of passing it makes them feel better.
Gunaphobes hate the National Rifle Association. They regard it as somehow evil if a legislator accepts an NRA campaign contribution. A recent report from the
Center for Responsive Politics, touted by gun-control activists, reveals that lawmakers who oppose gun-control legislation get more money from the NRA than those who don't. (Someone call "60 Minutes," we have a news flash.) This is proof, they claim, that a legislator has "sold out," preposterously assuming that no one could independently agree with an NRA position.
Listen, I'm not an NRA member, and they never gave me a nickel, but I often agree with them. So? There are about 80 million gun owners in the U.S., including members of congress. Are these people not entitled to representation and a voice in legislative bodies? It's far more reasonable that NRA contributions go to similarly inclined legislators with pre-established views on gun control, than that all their support is bought and paid for.
There's plenty of money flowing, right now, from anti-gun groups to their like-minded favorites. Should we assume that legislators who favor more gun-control laws are mere lackeys with no personal principles or convictions, simply dancing to the tune of the gun-control lobby? Should we assume the same of office-holders who take money from the teachers union, trial lawyers, environmentalists, and Naderites? Only an arrogant, self-serving liberal could believe that the money dispensed by the groups they like is good while everyone else's is bad.
Why don't we just discuss the issue on its merits? Contrary to their public posturing and self-delusion, the anti-gun side hasn't secured the moral high-ground in this
debate; they're just dizzy on their emotions.
Rosen's radio talk show can be heard on 85-KOA radio in Denver, weekdays from 9 a.m. to noon. Write him in care of 1380 Lawrence St., Suite 1300, Denver 80204.
Mike Rosen: Gun control issue must be debated on its merits
Predictably, the Columbine tragedy has reenergized the local and national debate on gun control. Letters-to-the-editors pages are overflowing with passionate debaters on both sides. The vehemence of the opposing viewpoints is a measure of the irreconcilable differences between the parties involved.
In this firefight, gun owners are armed with reason and the Constitution - federal and state. Gun controllers and would-be confiscators, on the other hand, have
immersed themselves in emotion and self-righteousness. Gun owners seek to protect something tangible: their Second Amendment guarantee of the right to bear
arms, and with it the ability to defend themselves, if necessary, through their own efforts. They also understand that the founders designed the Second Amendment as
a check on potentially oppressive government, especially federal government. The assurance that the Bill of Rights would include just such an amendment was necessary to win constitutional ratification from the legislatures of the original 13 states.
The anti-gun crowd sees little merit in the Second Amendment. Since they don't intend to exercise it, they're more than willing to give up their right to bear arms, especially if they can deny that right to everyone else. Gun control utopians just want the nasty things to go away. Once law-abiding citizens have surrendered their guns, these wishful thinkers sincerely hope that criminals can be disarmed, as well. Hoping tends to be a major element of their public policy agenda. They see no virtue in an armed citizenry as a deterrent to oppressive government precisely because they have unbridled confidence in government activism. They crave new laws
and regulations, at any price, to reduce risk and make us all safer. For them, the promise of safety trumps freedom. These are the kind of people who revel in the plea: "Even if it would save only one life, wouldn't it be worth it?" (The rational answer to which is usually, "no.") Passing a law, to them, is like a religious experience. They take it on faith that even the most impractical law will produce the desired outcome. It doesn't matter that they've passed a bad law, if the act of passing it makes them feel better.
Gunaphobes hate the National Rifle Association. They regard it as somehow evil if a legislator accepts an NRA campaign contribution. A recent report from the
Center for Responsive Politics, touted by gun-control activists, reveals that lawmakers who oppose gun-control legislation get more money from the NRA than those who don't. (Someone call "60 Minutes," we have a news flash.) This is proof, they claim, that a legislator has "sold out," preposterously assuming that no one could independently agree with an NRA position.
Listen, I'm not an NRA member, and they never gave me a nickel, but I often agree with them. So? There are about 80 million gun owners in the U.S., including members of congress. Are these people not entitled to representation and a voice in legislative bodies? It's far more reasonable that NRA contributions go to similarly inclined legislators with pre-established views on gun control, than that all their support is bought and paid for.
There's plenty of money flowing, right now, from anti-gun groups to their like-minded favorites. Should we assume that legislators who favor more gun-control laws are mere lackeys with no personal principles or convictions, simply dancing to the tune of the gun-control lobby? Should we assume the same of office-holders who take money from the teachers union, trial lawyers, environmentalists, and Naderites? Only an arrogant, self-serving liberal could believe that the money dispensed by the groups they like is good while everyone else's is bad.
Why don't we just discuss the issue on its merits? Contrary to their public posturing and self-delusion, the anti-gun side hasn't secured the moral high-ground in this
debate; they're just dizzy on their emotions.
Rosen's radio talk show can be heard on 85-KOA radio in Denver, weekdays from 9 a.m. to noon. Write him in care of 1380 Lawrence St., Suite 1300, Denver 80204.
