The Core Problem of the Gun Control Movement

Charlotte, NC (TLS). The modern debate between gun control proponents and Second Amendment rights groups has taken the dialogue in many different directions. Gun control proponents often site the use of handguns in crime as a central facet of their argument to limit gun rights. Second Amendment rights groups counter that key statistical information shows that tightening the availability of handguns does not correlate with a resulting decrease in handgun crime.

In like manner, gun control proponents often use the tragic instances of deadly school violence as a pressing and urgent need to increase gun control. Their efforts to date, however, show no corresponding decrease in school violence in spite of the massive list of laws that already control the availability of guns. Second Amendment rights groups correctly point out, in rebuttal, that restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens never controls the actions of those who are intent on breaking the law. Thus, more laws do not matter. Criminals were never concerned with obeying the law to begin with. So, why punish law-abiding gun owners when the objective, or so they claim, is to beat down the criminal element that uses guns in their crimes?

So far, each and every argument that has been postulated by gun control advocates has been successfully rebutted by Second Amendment advocacy groups. Yet this has in no way deterred the gun grabbers from their outlandish proposals to strip citizens of their Constitutional rights.

This leads to only one conclusion--the common arguments used by gun control advocates do not address the real issue. The real issue is that gun grabbers have a philosophical aversion to the notion of guns, period, and they sincerely believe that society should be totally rid of these 'instruments of evil.'

And here is precisely the core problem of the gun control movement. Their philosophical bias does not translate into personal behavior, i.e., the idea of gun control is embraced fully as a worthy endeavor, that is, until they themselves stand face-to-face with an immediate threat to their very lives and the lives of their family members.

Senator Diane Feinstein, D-CA, is a perfect case in point. Feinstein is one of the fiercest opponents to gun rights in the country today. She rates a grade of 'F-' from Gun Owners of America for her consistent stance against Second Amendment rights. Yet it was Feinstein who, during the mid 1970s, bought and possessed a concealed handgun in response to a terrorist threat to her and her family.

Feinstein herself admitted to her hypocrisy before a Senate panel in 1995, during which she stated the following: 'Because less than 20 years ago I was the target of a terrorist group. It was the New World Liberation Front. They blew up power stations and put a bomb at my home when my husband was dying of cancer. And the bomb didn't detonate. ... I was very lucky. But, I thought of what might have happened. Later the same group shot out all the windows of my home.

'And, I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself, because that's what I did. I was trained in firearms. I'd walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me.'

So, there you have it, my friends, the core problem of the gun-grabbers. The rules they propose for the masses are not the same rules by which they themselves, the elites, intend to abide. It is perfectly acceptable for a powerful government official in San Francisco to arm herself with a concealed weapon when her family is threatened by a terrorist. Yet for an average individual citizen to do so automatically makes them a target for suspicion in crime and an urgent impetus for imposing more gun control on the masses.

Over the last several years we have seen this very phenomenon time and again among America's leftist elites and Hollywood stars. Gun grabber Rosie O-Donnell stated in 2001 that 'gun owners should be jailed, period.' Yet it was discovered at the very same time she made the remark that she employed a bodyguard who carried a concealed weapon.

This type of bare-faced hypocrisy is not surprising among the Hollywood elite. This is their very same practice when it comes to 'the environmentalist movement.' They will decry and condemn the burning of fossil fuels and Americans' love affair with SUVs, yet they themselves travel in some of the biggest gas-guzzlers in the country, and this is not to mention the thousands of air miles per year they rack up traveling here and yon.

Here again, we peons among the insignificant masses of humanity should be forced to drive tin cans that get 150 miles per gallon. But the mighty stars of Hollywood get to burn millions of gallons of fossil fuels in their jets and in the Hummers, Vipers, and other gas-guzzling luxury vehicles they seem to so dearly love.

This is one of the classic cases where the massive gap between philosophical theory and daily practicality is brought into the spotlight. To the Leftwing, the philosophical theory of a gun-less society is very attractive; and, it is even more attractive to attempt to impose that theory on the masses. Yet, when those very Leftwing activists are themselves confronted with imminent danger to their very lives and that of their families, the harsh realities of daily practically trump the philosophical theory. They carry a concealed weapon, or else hire a bodyguard to do so while they self-righteously denounce those 'evil guns.'

This is one of the reasons why the pro-gun movement is so active and growing in America today. Not only are we repulsed by the blatant hypocrisy of the gun control movement, but we see a moral and ethical obligation to protect the ignorant from themselves. Yes, even Diane Feinstein needs to be protected from terrorists. So does Rosie O-Donnell. In their blind hypocrisy they fail to see the great danger in which they are placing themselves and the citizens with their relentless pursuit of gun control. Those of us who have eyes to see the danger are actually protecting the very lives of the likes of Feinstein and O'Donnell by our relentless fight to keep the practice of keeping and bearing arms free from government restriction.