So as I'm sure most have noticed, after every mass shooting, you get the gun controllers, mostly leftists but some on the right, calling for gun control. The response from the gun rights proponents is always, "Now is not the time to talk about gun control, think about the feelings of those who have just been traumatized and lost loved ones." Of course then the time passes and the "discussion" about gun control never comes.
This has led to frustrated journalists saying after mass shootings more recently, "Well WHEN IS THE TIME TO TALK ABOUT GUN CONTROL?" To which I would respond, "Never." We should never discuss gun control. The banning, the restriction of firearms, should not even be a topic up for discussion.
My reasoning, on the surface, is that the right to keep and bear arms is as sacrosanct and sacred as any of the other rights we cherish and so protect. But to delve more into detail, let's suppose that instead of mass shootings having become more frequent, we instead were having frequent equivalents of the Boston bombing. A bombing here, a bombing there, a truck massacre here, a truck massacre there, 20 killed here, 30 killed there, 60 killed, etc...and let's say that the common denominator in all of these attacks was Muslim terrorists. Let us also remember that three of the recent mass shootings have in fact been Muslim terrorists (Fort Hood, San Bernardino, Orlando nightclub).
Does anybody really think the media would start saying, "Look, the common denominator in all of these attacks is Muslims. We really need to start looking into restrictions on Muslim privacy, due process, and interaction with law enforcement. And also on free speech. People should not be allowed to hold something like a Muslim cartoon contest. But it shouldn't be that a police officer or F.B.I. agent can knock on a Muslim's door and be told, "No" in response to a request to ask some questions. lt shouldn't be that nothing can be done if people suspect a Muslim or Muslims of doing something related to terrorism. We need to really consider a law whereby such people could be temporarily detained against their will until things are figured out."
Then the ACLU jumps to their (the Muslims') defense. So people start demonizing the ACLU. "The ACLU have blood on their hands." "These terrorist attacks are the fault of the ACLU! They continually stand in the way of sensible legislation to allow law enforcement to be able to put a stop to these violent acts."
The ACLU:
"But the laws you are calling for are blatant violations of people's rights. You can't just violate people's rights like this because they are Muslims, or people in general regarding free speech. And we have no way of knowing if any of this proposed legislation would even have prevented any of these attacks."
The States:
"If the Congress is going to continue to bow to the whims of the ACLU and refuse to pass sensible Terrorism Safety legislation, then WE the states, will enact our own laws." So we then see laws banning speech mocking of Muslims and allowing violations of privacy, due process, and right to remain silent passing in various states.
Now, as I've said, does anyone really even think the media or anyone would be talking in this way if repeated terrorist attacks were occurring? And even if some of the states or a locality tried any such laws, the courts would smack them down faster than you can blink an eye. After 9/11, in which we had 3,000 people killed, to the extent that anything was done (Patriot Act, wiretapping, waterboarding, enhanced interrogation techniques, CIA black sites, Guantanamo Bay, No Fly Lists, etc...) the Bush administration was lambasted. Bush was called the works, "fascist," "Hitler," "Nazi," etc...I am sure if he had talked about a temporary Muslim ban as Trump was, he'd have gotten heavy criticism too.
Why is this? Because Americans value individual freedom and liberty a great deal. France had a terrorist attack that killed thirty-something people and the whole country was placed on lockdown, civil liberties suspended. America gets 3,000 killed and virtually nothing changes, and of the changes that did occur, many argue (and still do) that there were very excessive.
So why are gun rights different? Why is it that in the face of an increase in mass shootings (three recent ones of which have been terrorists), that all-of-a-sudden, gun rights are supposed to be so expendable, and anybody who fights to protect them is a demon and has blood on their hands? And especially when we know that the mass shootings can't be due to the guns as the guns have been around for far longer than the mass shootings.
Going back to my original assertion, this is why I say that gun control should never be a topic of discussion. It should no more be a topic of discussion then restrictions of the right to free speech, privacy, religion, right to remain silent, due process, and so forth, violations of which ALL could be justified in the name of "security." And these are the arguments that I would use against people screaming (literally as we've seen of late) for gun control. You cannot violate people's rights of any kind, including guns, because someone is abusing the rights. We fight evil speech with more speech, we should fight evil people using guns with more guns. The right to keep and bear arms should be considered as sacred as any of the other rights cherished in the Constitution.
Calling a gun rights proponent evil or saying they have blood on their hands because they refuse to support gun control right now would be like calling a proponent of the other civil liberties evil or claiming they have blood on their hands because they refuse to bow to demands to restrict such rights.
This has led to frustrated journalists saying after mass shootings more recently, "Well WHEN IS THE TIME TO TALK ABOUT GUN CONTROL?" To which I would respond, "Never." We should never discuss gun control. The banning, the restriction of firearms, should not even be a topic up for discussion.
My reasoning, on the surface, is that the right to keep and bear arms is as sacrosanct and sacred as any of the other rights we cherish and so protect. But to delve more into detail, let's suppose that instead of mass shootings having become more frequent, we instead were having frequent equivalents of the Boston bombing. A bombing here, a bombing there, a truck massacre here, a truck massacre there, 20 killed here, 30 killed there, 60 killed, etc...and let's say that the common denominator in all of these attacks was Muslim terrorists. Let us also remember that three of the recent mass shootings have in fact been Muslim terrorists (Fort Hood, San Bernardino, Orlando nightclub).
Does anybody really think the media would start saying, "Look, the common denominator in all of these attacks is Muslims. We really need to start looking into restrictions on Muslim privacy, due process, and interaction with law enforcement. And also on free speech. People should not be allowed to hold something like a Muslim cartoon contest. But it shouldn't be that a police officer or F.B.I. agent can knock on a Muslim's door and be told, "No" in response to a request to ask some questions. lt shouldn't be that nothing can be done if people suspect a Muslim or Muslims of doing something related to terrorism. We need to really consider a law whereby such people could be temporarily detained against their will until things are figured out."
Then the ACLU jumps to their (the Muslims') defense. So people start demonizing the ACLU. "The ACLU have blood on their hands." "These terrorist attacks are the fault of the ACLU! They continually stand in the way of sensible legislation to allow law enforcement to be able to put a stop to these violent acts."
The ACLU:
"But the laws you are calling for are blatant violations of people's rights. You can't just violate people's rights like this because they are Muslims, or people in general regarding free speech. And we have no way of knowing if any of this proposed legislation would even have prevented any of these attacks."
The States:
"If the Congress is going to continue to bow to the whims of the ACLU and refuse to pass sensible Terrorism Safety legislation, then WE the states, will enact our own laws." So we then see laws banning speech mocking of Muslims and allowing violations of privacy, due process, and right to remain silent passing in various states.
Now, as I've said, does anyone really even think the media or anyone would be talking in this way if repeated terrorist attacks were occurring? And even if some of the states or a locality tried any such laws, the courts would smack them down faster than you can blink an eye. After 9/11, in which we had 3,000 people killed, to the extent that anything was done (Patriot Act, wiretapping, waterboarding, enhanced interrogation techniques, CIA black sites, Guantanamo Bay, No Fly Lists, etc...) the Bush administration was lambasted. Bush was called the works, "fascist," "Hitler," "Nazi," etc...I am sure if he had talked about a temporary Muslim ban as Trump was, he'd have gotten heavy criticism too.
Why is this? Because Americans value individual freedom and liberty a great deal. France had a terrorist attack that killed thirty-something people and the whole country was placed on lockdown, civil liberties suspended. America gets 3,000 killed and virtually nothing changes, and of the changes that did occur, many argue (and still do) that there were very excessive.
So why are gun rights different? Why is it that in the face of an increase in mass shootings (three recent ones of which have been terrorists), that all-of-a-sudden, gun rights are supposed to be so expendable, and anybody who fights to protect them is a demon and has blood on their hands? And especially when we know that the mass shootings can't be due to the guns as the guns have been around for far longer than the mass shootings.
Going back to my original assertion, this is why I say that gun control should never be a topic of discussion. It should no more be a topic of discussion then restrictions of the right to free speech, privacy, religion, right to remain silent, due process, and so forth, violations of which ALL could be justified in the name of "security." And these are the arguments that I would use against people screaming (literally as we've seen of late) for gun control. You cannot violate people's rights of any kind, including guns, because someone is abusing the rights. We fight evil speech with more speech, we should fight evil people using guns with more guns. The right to keep and bear arms should be considered as sacred as any of the other rights cherished in the Constitution.
Calling a gun rights proponent evil or saying they have blood on their hands because they refuse to support gun control right now would be like calling a proponent of the other civil liberties evil or claiming they have blood on their hands because they refuse to bow to demands to restrict such rights.