Is there anything more delicious than gun owners urging that a right guaranteed under the Constitution should be subject to reasonable regulation if the failure to do so causes harm? They want limitations — but not on the Second Amendment right to bear arms but rather the First Amendment right of free speech. A Westchester County, N.Y. newspaper, the Journal News, published a map showing the names and addresses of pistol permit holders. The information was public and there is no real dispute over the right to publish it. Nonetheless, the outcry from gun advocates was deafening.
First up a LOVELY false dichotomy right there! Yeah the 2nd Amendment is absolute, hence why I can build and sell guns in my basement as if I was making nick-nacks or computer software. And of course we can easily buy full-auto weapons and explosives…right? You see the antis always start with today being ZERO restrictions, and tell us NOW is the time to compromise. Of course that isn’t so. May I quote Lawdog for just a moment:
I hear a lot about “compromise” from your camp … except, it’s not compromise.
Let’s say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with “GUN RIGHTS” written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, “Give me that cake.”
I say, “No, it’s my cake.”
You say, “Let’s compromise. Give me half.” I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.
Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.
There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, “Give me that cake.”
I say, “No, it’s my cake.”
You say, “Let’s compromise.” What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what’s left of the cake I already own.
So, we have your compromise — let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 — and I’m left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.
Second is he claiming that the 1st Amendment is absolute? Does the press have absolute freedom? We know they can’t publish medical records. We know they can’t publish information in minor children. They can’t peek in your windows to take pictures inside your home. Are you saying that respecting privacy in THOSE instances are wrong?
Of course not, you see anti-rights activists are all for THEIR rights. You see THEY don’t own guns, so any infringement there is fine and good. But they go to the hospital, they have private lives, they have children, so that stuff is sacred….because its THEIRS! You can trust them when they say they want changes for “Public Safety” not for purely selfish reasons…because there is no evidence that they are either ignorant or selfish, right?
The primary complaint seemed slightly illogical: the publication of the information placed gun owners in greater danger from criminals. Wait a minute. Isn’t this what it’s all about — that having a gun in your house protects you from criminals and deters them? Why would criminals knowing that you have a weapon in the house increase rather than reduce the risk of home invasion? Publicizing those that don’t have guns might do that, but that complaint doesn’t come from gun owners.
That’s one argument being made, that criminals may target homes simply because they AREN’T on the list. I would also argue that criminals can easily figure out occupancy of a home, and pick when the home owner isn’t there so they can STEAL the guns. Of course there is also the point that not all criminals are strangers to their victims. There are also police officers who may have criminals with a vendetta, or victims of domestic abuse who are hiding from their ex.
Boy, you sure care about public safety!
Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter ranted on this issue like two inmates in an insane asylum. In the most ludicrous analogy every posited, Coulter said if these facts about gun owners can be posted, why not publicize “which women (who had an abortion) on the street are likely to murder a child” — suggesting that somehow a woman who had an abortion is likely to murder someone else’s child! She also declared that “liberals won’t let us go after criminals,” and, of course, “They are coming after our guns!” In like vein, the newspaper received death threats and had to hire security guards. I don’t think even the NRA can claim that these threats came from criminals rather than “law-abiding” gun owners.
Oops, god forbid somebody tread on the sacred “Right” to have an abortion when a “Progressive” is in earshot! Also are you NOT coming for our guns? Seems there is a LOT of talk of various forms of confiscation out there, and at least banning of transfer, which means at BEST after you DIE they’ll take your guns from your estate. Hell even a law doesn’t get pressed with these clauses, you know that’s their intent. So sorry, the term “Gun Grabber” is 100% accurate, and you’re one of them.
Sorry, I don’t want to play your game.