By John Fuller
Once President Barack Obama was re-elected, he no longer had to stifle his anti-Second Amendment beliefs.
Seizing upon the atrocity in Connecticut, Obama and Democrats have mounted a full-court press on American citizens’ right to “keep and bear arms” with a plethora of restrictive bills.
Claiming to curb “gun violence,” not one of them would or could reduce the crime rate. However, in all the debate and defense of the Second Amendment, one argument has been ignored; the immorality of the anti-gun movement.
Implicit in the gun-control, “assault-weapons,” large-capacity-magazine ban and “gun-free zone” movement is the theory that in a modern society (i.e. progressive, liberal utopia), there is no need for people to be afraid of their government or to defend themselves from criminals. This theory is immoral.
The gun-control movement is immoral because inherently it requires people to forfeit their “God-given” rights to “life, liberty and property.” If citizens are denied the ability to defend their own “inalienable rights,” then they are dependent on others.
Relying on someone else to protect your rights implies that their lives and rights are worth less than yours. Forcing people to accept such a dependency is evil, depraved and corrupt.
It also leads to slavery.
By Joe Carbonari
Calling gun control, or those who favor some form of it, “immoral,” is not helpful.
Vilifying those who disagree with us tends to harden positions, create personal distaste and impede the deliberative process.
It is better suited to warfare than to the disputed issues of a civil society. Stridency and disparagement are seldom helpful in the resolution of public concerns, whether the words involved be spoken or written. They tend to discourage and stifle, and then replace, rational thought.
More frequent, in my estimation, is the situation where a proliferation of guns would lead, through accident or escalation, to unnecessary violence.
Short of apocalypse, I can’t imagine a situation where handing out guns to the general populace would improve my sense of security – real or imagined.
The laws, customs and institutions of a civil society serve, together with the exercise of common sense, to adequately provide for both common and individual defense.
The law should allow for reasonable, responsible access to and possession of firearms, but as for our society’s bodyguards, I’d prefer that the majority of them wore uniforms and had the training, and restraint, of professionals.
Immoral? I don’t think so.
|Send feedback to [email protected].|
Stay Connected with the Daily Roundup.
Sign up for our newsletter and get the best of the Beacon delivered every day to your inbox.