New Jersey –-(Ammoland.com)- Need and Reasonable, two words that are central tenants of the arguments for stricter laws from the Gun Control crowd, their enablers in the media, and their sycophants in Government, at all levels.
No matter what gun control advocates are targeting, whether its .50 cal rifles or carry rights or magazine size restrictions or so-called “assault weapons” the buzz words “need” and “reasonable” are universally trotted out as justification for what they are seeking as if they are some magical talisman that makes the Anti Gun side seem eminently rational and anyone that opposes them or their schemes to be a callous, ignorant extremist.
For those capable of critical thinking and logic, it’s transparently apparent that “need” and “reasonable” are merely clever marketing terms, intentionally selected with all the ruthlessness and calculation to produce the desired result as the best commercial or advertisement ever dreamed up on Madison Avenue.
But “need” and “reasonable” have no place in any serious debate or discussion over protected fundamental rights.
They are not legal terms, they are wholly subjective and mean wildly different things to different people. Laws impacting god-given rights should not and cannot be based on such overly expansive terms and any argument to the contrary is intellectually bankrupt on its face. The topic of gun control is the only public policy debate I am aware of where such open-ended words are used on a regular basis with little if any discussion about how dangerous they are when about the Rights of Citizens.
No Citizen is required to justify, to anyone, their desire to exercise any of their rights in whatever way they see fit.
If I were to suggest that Piers Morgan or Chris Matthews or Bill Mahr ( all rabidly Anti Gun shills) only “needed” a pen and paper to exercise their 1st Amendment Rights, as opposed to having TV Shows, there would be immediate and widespread outrage at even the mere suggestion, and rightly so. Despite the fact that Free Speech and words have led to more deaths throughout human history than every weapon ever devised by the human mind. Think, The Crusades, Mein Kampf, The Little Red Book, The Communist Manifesto, written Declarations of War, or even something as simple as a heated text argument that turns deadly.
What if I suggested that no one “needed” a 6 bedroom, 4 bath, 7000 sq ft house to live in? After all, you can only sleep in one bedroom at a time, you can only use one bathroom at a time and after all, how much space to you really “need” to live in and keep a roof over your head?
It sounds an awful lot like the same reasoning used by Anti Gun advocates, doesn’t it? They always rationalize using the same arguments that I just wrote about concerning the size and accouterments of someone’s house. Just insert the word “Gun” into the above paragraph, and you have the Anti Gun argument in a nutshell.
Or, apply the same ideas to cars. What if I said no one “needs” any vehicle capable of exceeding three times the highest speed limit in the country, after all, speeding is an illegal and reckless use of a car that certainly carries risks and dangers to other innocent people doesn’t it? Automobile accidents claim more than three times the number of lives annually in the US than firearms-related homicides do.
But, unlike Anti Gun advocates, I’m not arrogant enough to think I have the right to enforce, by force of law, my personal opinions on others. I’m not narcissistic enough to believe I know what’s best for everyone else, and perhaps most importantly, I have enough intellectual integrity to at least tell the truth about the topic of firearms, something that is a foreign concept to those that advocate for stricter Gun Control.
And they wonder why no one “need” listen to them anymore?
About Dan Roberts
More articles, commentary and information by D. Roberts available at ThatEveryManBeArmed.com