Why Elevating the Debate on Gun Control is Ceding Rights

Everywhere I go I hear and read the same old malarkey about how gun rights advocates will not “rationally” and “reasonably” join in a national debate to limit access to guns. Those making the demands for such “debate” as they wish to misrepresent their cause, attempt to paint a picture that anyone not wishing to lay down and play dead are “extremist” or “right wing”, along with many other descriptive titles of which I’ll refrain from posting. Gun rights is NOT a left/right issue. Even fascists like Sen. Dianne Feinstein and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg believe in THEIR right to guns for their own protection but seemingly aren’t interested in yours.

From an intelligent perspective, isn’t demanding that others join in THEIR debate on gun control akin to demanding that people sit down and rationally and reasonably debate the need to prohibit the police from entering your home at anytime for any reason just to have a look around? After all, if the police could come into your home anytime, people will be safer – won’t they? Of course the brainwashed masses will immediately say it’s not the same thing. But aren’t they?

Those who say the two are not related do so because they actually believe that because guns exist, mass murders occur. Isn’t that the same as saying that because private homes exist, they are subject to invasion, i.e. robbery, random crime, etc.? And one could further argue that if the people are disarmed, all the more reason cops should invade your home anytime they want because you are not capable of taking care of yourself; just as government wants it.

Most people who advocate for the rights guaranteed in the Second Amendment believe this right is necessary for self protection and the warding off or tyrannical governments, both foreign and domestic and rightfully argue that the presence of guns, no matter the type, is not responsible for mass murders, or killings of any kind.

I’m not attempting to censor the free speech of those seeking bans on guns. It’s disingenuous to demonize people who strongly believe in their right to protection, while at the same time presenting themselves as somehow about the fray because they want to compromise away those rights. This tactic is common throughout all political debate and comes up when one side doesn’t have any fact, truth or data to support the eagerness for dictatorial rule, which is what they are advocating whether they know it or not.

I’m so tired of hearing the ignorance, cultivated through mind manipulation, that comprise is a necessary thing. Compromise is good for things like trying to decide what brand of soda pop to buy for the party but has no place when it comes to the fundamental and inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Before anyone should be talking about further destruction of the Bill of Rights, maybe the “rational” and “reasonable” debate should be about what has happened in our society that ends in things like Sandy Hook.

Guns have been prevalent in the United States at least since the Pilgrims used the blunderbust. Maybe the transformation of a God-fearing, respectful citizenry, founded with a sense of moral duty and responsibility, into a liberal, progressive, decadent, immoral, Sodom and Gomorrah-like culture has something to do with why. Dare we not address that?