Leftist Suppresses Dissent

Not surprisingly in the wake of the Aurora movie theater shooting my lefty dominated Facebook wall had many calls for more gun control.  One friend posted a particularly bad poster that was filled with basic factual errors.

I posted a response gently correcting the record. Another lefty reacted to my comments with a borderline incoherent, utopian screed about not needing guns and the second amendment not being relevant anymore.

Before the “conversation” was completed the original poster deleted the thread.  Of course - we wouldn’t want to have to face any dissent, would we? But, as always, the left’s conspicuous unwillingness to engage with reality is their loss, not ours. We know how to debate this issue, they don’t.

Anyway, the conversation was deleted before I could preserve it.  But here was my first response to the loopy utopian.  Not surprisingly she did not even try to address the questions in her follow-up.

What is not needed: this gun or any gun?  If just this gun, in what way is it different from any other?  If any gun, why are guns not needed?  Are there no criminals who prey on the weak and the innocent?  Are there never natural disasters or civil disturbances where civil society breaks down?

In what way is the second amendment not relevant for our times?  First, see above.  Second, violent crime happens with or without firearms.  While any one person is not likely to be the victim of a violent crime, that is small comfort to those who are.  Crime happens.  I am still recovering from spine surgery, how is it moral to force me to defend myself by hand against a criminal who is younger, faster and stronger?  What about my petite wife? What about my aging mother?  Why do police carry guns if they are irrelevant?  Do police in countries with strong gun control laws still carry guns?  Why, to take one example, did gun crime soar in the UK after Tony Blair gutted private gun ownership?  Why has gun crime dropped in the U.S. at the same time that an increasing number of states enacted concealed carry laws?

If the second amendment is no longer relevant, why is free speech relevant? Freedom of religion or assembly? The right of protection against self-incrimination or unreasonable searches and seizures?  If you like these other rights, why are they different?  If it is morally acceptable for you to trash a right I care deeply about but you dislike, why would it not be acceptable for me to do so to a right you care about?  How is this compatible with a respect for individual rights?

I trust you will be able to provide a good response for each of these questions.  These are, of course, some of the essential questions that many of us who support the second amendment have wrestled with (no, we’re not just a bunch of rednecks).  In fact, for many of us the answers are actually what drove us to support the second amendment.

UPDATE: Sebastian has marked up the very poster that produced the discussion.  I made similar points in my original response on Facebook.

One Response

  1. Hey nice post! I hope it’s alright that I shared this on my
    Facebook, if not, no worries just let me know and I’ll remove it.
    Regardless keep up the good work.

Leave a Reply