Anand,
There is no 100% valid answer - there is so much involved with your
question. But I’ll take a stab at it.
1) We ALL limit the activities of other people. Although we tend to say that
John and Jane have a right to do anything they want on their own property,
we do not believe or permit it. Even if our neighbors do not recklessly
endanger the property or families of others, we prohibit, prevent, and
punish “crimes” (e.g. incest, spousal/child abuse, manslaughter, murder,
etc.). The question, as always, is where to draw the line. What do we
make “crimes”?
- If everyone in our neighborhood were armed, trained, and willing to
protect their neighbors and their property, crime would decrease. But we
can not force people to do that. Self-defense advocates can not force their
neighbors to become willing and able gun owners. Therefore, my family,
my property, and I are at greater risk because of that lack of deterrent.
- If there were no guns, there would be no shootings! That simplistic
phrase is 100% true and 100% unrealistic. There is no way to eliminate
firearms unless you also eliminate metal, wood, and tools. Therefore, my
family, my property, and I are at greater risk from firearms because there is
no effective way to eliminate firearms.
- “Guns make small people powerful!” - meaning guns make punks more
dangerous. But this argument is a two-edged sword. My wife’s .357, my
daughter’s 12ga., my other daughter’s .44Spec., all provide an additional
level of safety for my loved ones. Therefore, my family, my property, and I
are somewhat safer because we are willing and able gun owners.
- The bottom line here is, “Where do we draw the line?” People who
honestly believe guns prevent crime will advocate our Right to Keep and
Bear Arms (as will those who understand the original intent of our Second
Amendment). People who believe guns cause crime, or make crime more
violent, will advocate gun control.
And that leads to point two.
2) Once a person is informed and understands the question of gun rights v.
gun control, then a debate and opinions are understandable. But there are
many problems with this procedure:
- Most people are willing to form strong opinions while grossly UNinformed.
Some of these people also are willing to accept and consider additional
information. These are our target group. If we can present them with facts
which appeal to them (academically AND emotionally), we may be able to
bring them into our camp.
- Many uninformed people prefer to remain uninformed. They do not
permit facts to affect what passes for their “thinking process”. These people
are bigots - they are our philosophical enemies. We must discredit them by
presenting the truth so their bigotry does not spread.
- Some people truly are fence-sitters. They have the information they
need to make a valid decision but they can not find resolution. Because of
emotions or an inability to weigh and evaluate facts, they remain
undecided. These people are our target group. If we can calmly and
courteously help them with their decision-making process we can bring
them into our camp.
- Some people know the truth about firearms but have an agenda which
conflicts with the will of many of the governed. Therefore, they set aside
facts and truth because they can not abide “commoners” having the Right
to Keep and Bear Arms.
= With Sarah Brady, I believe hate and revenge motivate her attempts to
eliminate firearms. She has been denied her previously envisioned
yuppie prizes and she is seeking revenge on anything and anyone she (in
her twisted thinking) believes may be related to her “loss”. Supporting her
efforts would be the attention she received from her “enemies” and the
fawning attention of her sycophants.
= More ominous than HCI is the United Nations. This power-mad
organization is motivated by revenge, greed, and lust for power. I fear
them most of all for they affect others with their “global” Socialist views.
---------
I strayed from your original question, “Why are people so fickle?” In short,
I believe people appear fickle because they rely upon their changing
emotions at the moment rather than a set of personal core values.
--------
So there’s my nickel’s worth.
My final point is simple.
I will have my guns.
I will do everything both legal and within my power to ensure that I will
have my guns and that others have the right to decide whether to have
guns or not. That is why I will continue to:
Stick it to ‘em!
RKBA!
[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited December 15, 1999).]
