ANTI-GUN OR ANTI-RIGHTS?
By Randy Gibson, TSRA Executive Director
(Texas State Rifle Association)
Force the locks and close the loopholes. It's all in the name of safety, and we all stand for safety, right?
Well, that's what many liberals in our great nation want you to believe. However, I for one do not feel safety is necessarily in the forefront of the minds of many of our fellow citizens on the left.
In recent weeks, we have seen a controversy in the media regarding the statements made between the NRA and the Clinton administration. This has led the country into an even larger debate over not just gun control, but into other areas of our Constitution as well, namely, the issue of free speech. So, all things considered, is the issue over being pro- or anti- "gun" or pro- or anti- "rights?"
Many politicians and celebrities make the claim they are not "anti-gun" even though they promote the traditional "anti-gun" agenda. I am starting to believe them. I don't think they are as "anti-gun" as much as they are anti-rights.
Consider this--President Clinton and many other politicians claim they are not anti-gun. If they were truly anti-gun, they would not surround themselves with specially trained agents armed with guns. Very powerful guns. Agents paid for by us, the taxpayers. However, they do. Thus, it could appear that they are indeed not anti-gun, but anti-rights. They have personal protection, but they do not want us to have the right to that protection.
The same holds true for many celebrities. They surround themselves with armed bodyguards. So, it's easy for them to give up their guns. What's the big deal? Yet, the rest of us cannot afford armed bodyguards, so we are not entitled. To these politicians and celebrities, we do not have the same "rights" they have.
During the TSRA Annual Meeting, author Alan Korwin spoke to the membership. Alan is the author of The Texas Gun Owner's Guide and Gun Laws of America. His topic dealt with the rights we have as law-abiding Americans, and how we can focus our issue to be more in terms of "pro-rights" and not simply "pro-gun."
The liberals tell us we need to compromise in the name of "safety." "Do it for the children" is a phrase often uttered by President Clinton and other anti-gun (and anti-rights) politicians. Understand, I am all in favor of safety. That is why TSRA's motto in the past year has become "Safety Through Education, Not Legislation!”
However, is safety their primary concern? I am truly starting to wonder. Consider the fact that many liberals say they want safety education, yet they discredit programs such as the NRA Eddie Eagle GunSafe Program. They think it well when we discuss alcohol, drug and sex education in our schools, but scream when we offer to bring in firearm safety literature.
They say trigger locks are needed, yet they refuse to note that California, with its trigger lock law, had a higher percentage of accidents than Texas, which has no such law. The "anti's" are strangely silent on how they intend to enforce such a law. Enforcement of such a law would mean striking our Fourth Amendment right, as well.
The death of the little Michigan first-grader was tragic. Yet remember that the little boy who pulled the trigger was left by his mother in a known drug house with felons, wherein it was already illegal for them to have firearms. Yet, President Clinton's statement was that had a trigger lock law been in effect, this tragedy would not have happened. Was he serious?!? Surely even the most naive person would not take that statement seriously.
The U.S. Attorney General, the President and others in the anti-gun/anti-rights movement have verbally abused NRA and other law-abiding gun owners across America by blaming us for the actions of criminals. Yet, when the NRA leader responds by stating publicly that because of the lackluster enforcement record of this administration, many criminals walk the streets, the media and the liberals respond by saying these statements are unfair.
Do you see what is happening here? They want to have free speech, but they do not want us, the law-abiding gun owner, to have free speech. Thus, find a way to stop Amendment One, also.
Another area often debated is the gun show "loophole." Honestly, I have yet to have anyone explain to me this alleged "loophole." Since every law in effect outside of a gun show is in effect inside of a gun show, I have yet to see any "loophole." So, what is the real motive? Limit the access of firearms by the law-abiding citizen. Strike Amendment Two.
I am a firm believer that the U.S. Constitution, OUR Constitution, is a document written by men who were inspired by God Himself. Many of our founding fathers warned what would happen if the citizens failed to hold firm to the writings of this document by saying all they have fought for would be lost. They were talking of the future, even our day.
In the early 1800's there was a religious leader who said the day would come that the U.S. Constitution would "hang by a thread." With the current lackluster and uncaring attitudes of many Americans today, combined with the tremendous pressure being placed on our own political leaders by those who lead other nations (who abhor the rights of the citizens of America), I truly think we are in the process of seeing our Constitution being degraded.
If the current trend continues, I firmly believe in just a few short decades we will come to see the statements and beliefs our forefathers placed inside our beloved Constitution literally be shredded and torn, thus hanging by a thread. The question is, how much do you value your rights?
By Randy Gibson, TSRA Executive Director
(Texas State Rifle Association)
Force the locks and close the loopholes. It's all in the name of safety, and we all stand for safety, right?
Well, that's what many liberals in our great nation want you to believe. However, I for one do not feel safety is necessarily in the forefront of the minds of many of our fellow citizens on the left.
In recent weeks, we have seen a controversy in the media regarding the statements made between the NRA and the Clinton administration. This has led the country into an even larger debate over not just gun control, but into other areas of our Constitution as well, namely, the issue of free speech. So, all things considered, is the issue over being pro- or anti- "gun" or pro- or anti- "rights?"
Many politicians and celebrities make the claim they are not "anti-gun" even though they promote the traditional "anti-gun" agenda. I am starting to believe them. I don't think they are as "anti-gun" as much as they are anti-rights.
Consider this--President Clinton and many other politicians claim they are not anti-gun. If they were truly anti-gun, they would not surround themselves with specially trained agents armed with guns. Very powerful guns. Agents paid for by us, the taxpayers. However, they do. Thus, it could appear that they are indeed not anti-gun, but anti-rights. They have personal protection, but they do not want us to have the right to that protection.
The same holds true for many celebrities. They surround themselves with armed bodyguards. So, it's easy for them to give up their guns. What's the big deal? Yet, the rest of us cannot afford armed bodyguards, so we are not entitled. To these politicians and celebrities, we do not have the same "rights" they have.
During the TSRA Annual Meeting, author Alan Korwin spoke to the membership. Alan is the author of The Texas Gun Owner's Guide and Gun Laws of America. His topic dealt with the rights we have as law-abiding Americans, and how we can focus our issue to be more in terms of "pro-rights" and not simply "pro-gun."
The liberals tell us we need to compromise in the name of "safety." "Do it for the children" is a phrase often uttered by President Clinton and other anti-gun (and anti-rights) politicians. Understand, I am all in favor of safety. That is why TSRA's motto in the past year has become "Safety Through Education, Not Legislation!”
However, is safety their primary concern? I am truly starting to wonder. Consider the fact that many liberals say they want safety education, yet they discredit programs such as the NRA Eddie Eagle GunSafe Program. They think it well when we discuss alcohol, drug and sex education in our schools, but scream when we offer to bring in firearm safety literature.
They say trigger locks are needed, yet they refuse to note that California, with its trigger lock law, had a higher percentage of accidents than Texas, which has no such law. The "anti's" are strangely silent on how they intend to enforce such a law. Enforcement of such a law would mean striking our Fourth Amendment right, as well.
The death of the little Michigan first-grader was tragic. Yet remember that the little boy who pulled the trigger was left by his mother in a known drug house with felons, wherein it was already illegal for them to have firearms. Yet, President Clinton's statement was that had a trigger lock law been in effect, this tragedy would not have happened. Was he serious?!? Surely even the most naive person would not take that statement seriously.
The U.S. Attorney General, the President and others in the anti-gun/anti-rights movement have verbally abused NRA and other law-abiding gun owners across America by blaming us for the actions of criminals. Yet, when the NRA leader responds by stating publicly that because of the lackluster enforcement record of this administration, many criminals walk the streets, the media and the liberals respond by saying these statements are unfair.
Do you see what is happening here? They want to have free speech, but they do not want us, the law-abiding gun owner, to have free speech. Thus, find a way to stop Amendment One, also.
Another area often debated is the gun show "loophole." Honestly, I have yet to have anyone explain to me this alleged "loophole." Since every law in effect outside of a gun show is in effect inside of a gun show, I have yet to see any "loophole." So, what is the real motive? Limit the access of firearms by the law-abiding citizen. Strike Amendment Two.
I am a firm believer that the U.S. Constitution, OUR Constitution, is a document written by men who were inspired by God Himself. Many of our founding fathers warned what would happen if the citizens failed to hold firm to the writings of this document by saying all they have fought for would be lost. They were talking of the future, even our day.
In the early 1800's there was a religious leader who said the day would come that the U.S. Constitution would "hang by a thread." With the current lackluster and uncaring attitudes of many Americans today, combined with the tremendous pressure being placed on our own political leaders by those who lead other nations (who abhor the rights of the citizens of America), I truly think we are in the process of seeing our Constitution being degraded.
If the current trend continues, I firmly believe in just a few short decades we will come to see the statements and beliefs our forefathers placed inside our beloved Constitution literally be shredded and torn, thus hanging by a thread. The question is, how much do you value your rights?