Here are a few possible reasons.
1. They fear violence and feel impotent to deal with it, resenting those who are not afraid to confront violence with violence.
2. The powerlessness they feel is projected onto the object of the gun instead of the behavior of humans, since its easier to vilify the tool rather than deal with the abuse of the tool.
3. They feel superior to others who would use a weapon for defense, offense or sport because in their view of the world people who use weapons are unsophisticated and lack the moral discipline to refrain from violence to humans or other living creatures. They view hunters as blood thirsty, beer drinking, red necks or hicks that are an outdated remnant of our past.
4. They don't trust themselves to handle a deadly weapon and they therefore don't trust you.
5. They could handle a weapon but see no need to in a civilized society and they don't trust you because you are not a civilized as they are.
If the anti-gun folks held sway around the time of Jesus, they would have advocated the banning of all knives, swords, axes, bows and arrows etc., which were the main means of offense and defense in those days.
They would ban edged weapons today if the gun wasn't conveniently available as the more visible object of disdain.
They refuse the see that weapons have always been used for defensive and hunting purposes and that humans would not be around today if they had not developed such tools.
The danger in their world view is they are eternally naive. They really think that the elimination of the tool will eliminate bad behavior. They would disarm you and hope that the bad guys would go away. They likely would support disarming in general, and hope that other countries learn by our example and play nice. In short, too often these anti-gun folks are just in denial about the reality of the world we live in.
The next time you meet someone who doesn't believe that you should have the means for your own protection, ask them, ....what would you do if you child or spouse was about to be murdered and you had the choice of saving their life by being armed or watching them die before your eyes, because your were impotent by choice.
Most normal folks would answer, saying something like....of course if I had a weapon I would try to save my loved one's life.
But most anti-gun folks would argue that the likelihood of the necessity to have the means for self protection are small and are far outweighed by the potential that the gun would be stolen, misused by a child etc. or would not be within reach when needed....so they will take their chances. They are in denial that it could happen to them.
They have the right to decide to place their family at risk, but they don't have right to decide that you should place your family at risk. This is the fundamental premise of the Second amendment. Individuals have an inherent right to self defense. It is not granted by any government. The Constitution merely articulates this natural right enabling it to stand in law so that the government is prevented from acting to deny this natural right.
Over the next many months, the people of the District of Columbia will debate among themselves if they are comfortable trusting themselves to legally own guns in their homes. When the legal issue is finally resolved, those that can meet the basic qualifications to purchase a weapon will be able to do so. The anti-gunners won't buy the guns. They will hope the police show up in time. The gun buyers will hope their guns stay secure and ready. The criminals may think twice about who to rob. Gun violence will likely continue, but at a reduce rate. But at least the people will have a choice.
Technorati Tags:self defense, right to bear arms, second amendment right, firearm, handgun, gun
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
No comments:
Post a Comment