September 24, 2020

Confusing And Contradictory Editorials On Gun Rights Issues

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

It amazes me how that editors when they feel the need to weigh in on a subject, in this case gun rights, they use fear to get their point across, confuse facts with fiction and then present the issue of the right of lawful citizens with those of criminals as one in the same. Why?

In my journey through cyberspace this morning I found another editorial condemning the actions of Indiana officials in granting back to legal citizens the right to keep and bear arms.

The overused classical tactic of instilling fear among the masses is the choice of words to describe an action. In this case, the issue the editor is dealing with stems from action taken last week by the head of the Indiana DNR relaxing restrictions on concealed weapons permit holders to allow them to carry in state parks.

The editor begins his piece with this.

The thought of park visitors packing heat among the picnickers will surely be alarming

Packing heat among picnickers…….a classic. If that doesn’t paint a picture in the minds of ignorant readers nothing will. Just think, you’re sitting there enjoying a little barbecue chicken, some potato salad and ice cold lemonade, when the guy having his family outing next to you reaches into the inside of his jacket and pulls out a 9mm Glock and begins randomly shooting everyone in sight. Isn’t this what concealed weapon carriers do?

Here’s the first indication that lets us know the editor must be really, really old. I say that because of his “in parentheses” exclamation that tells us he/she was there when the founding fathers penned the 2nd Amendment.

(Although we doubt the Founding Fathers had state parks in mind when drafting the Second Amendment.)

Why did the editor choose to describe his efforts in a collective “we” when using this statement? Must be he has a “mouse” in his back pocket. How many times have we heard “experts” on the Constitution tell us the founding fathers meant this or they meant that? Even they are making every attempt at misleading people to believe the founding fathers wrote a “tricky” document, one that was confusing and deliberately full of several interpretations.

This statement is my all-time favorite and I know it will be yours after you read it.

Laws logically prohibit guns from airports, schools and other places where there is no rational explanation for carrying one.

Laws logically prohibit? Only for those who go through life bent on prohibiting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness from all the rest of Americans. In places where we “logically prohibit” carrying guns there is no “rational explanation” to have one. The only illlogical and irrational explanation anyone can have to want to take away the right that is granted us under the Constitution, is because they believe that the majority of people who have guns do so because they want to go kill other human beings. Have they ever thought that some people might really want and need protection? Here’s an original question. Have any of these people ever thought that I don’t need a “rational” explanation to own a gun or to carry concealed. As long as I am lawabiding and remain that way, I have the right.

The editor then goes on to contradict previous statements and suggests that Indiana is succumbing to pressures from the NRA.

While the lifting of the parkland gun ban doesn’t concern us, Indiana’s recent green light to the NRA does give us worry. In the last six months, Indiana has become:

The third state to allow people to use deadly force when threatened without first trying to back away.

The first in the nation to offer a lifetime license to carry a handgun.

“While the lifting of the parkland gun ban doesn’t concern us….”……..Wait, I’m back up off the floor. I got to go get some paper towel and clean the water off my computer screen that I spit out when I read this. The editor’s previous statements sure sounded to me like lifting the ban concerned him.

The same scare tactics are also used when antis editorialize about the “castle doctrine” as it is often called. The laws that are being passed in the majority of states, is merely a clarification of existing laws that allows a person to lethally defend themself when they reasonably preceive tp be threatened. Contrary to what some would have us believe, states that have enacted the new law have not seen an increase in senseless killings.

To offer the opportunity for someone to obtain a lifetime permit to carry is a great idea. Because the bureaucrats and the greedy politicians want to keep charging over and over again fees for permits and renewals, it is becoming an encumbrance on the people’s right to keep and bear arms. In many places, the anti gun crowd uses such tactics as backdoor gun control, even to the extent of bogging down applications through understaffing, budget contraints and paper work. Whether a person has a one-year, five-year or lifetime weapons permit, doesn’t really matter. That person still has to remain within the laws to retain his/her permit.

Finally, the editor begins talking about a completely different issue concerning public safety and firearms.

Even more bothersome is the state’s reluctance to properly monitor “straw” purchases of firearms. Such gun buys occur when someone fills out the legal forms and makes the purchase for another. The ruse is illegal and often used by convicted felons and others who cannot legally possess firearms.

Duh!?! This is why they are called criminals. I know of no supporter of 2nd Amendment rights who wants criminals to be able to have a gun. Most proponents of our right to own guns, believe that if the effort was put into going after the criminals and leaving the lawful gun owners alone, a lot more would be done to curb gun violence.

I am not exactly sure what the intent and focus of this editorial was. What began as an attempt to scare everyone out of the parks of Indiana, morphed into a chastising of the state of Indiana for not cracking down on criminals, with many stops in between.

When you sift through the wording meant to scare people and delete out the untruths and contradictions, the bottom line always comes down to the need to go after the bad guy not the good guy.

Tom Remington

Share