U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “People openly carried guns, even assault rifles, to the recent gun rally at the Capitol,” a Friday opinion piece titled “Gun Rally Smacked of Fascism” in The Salt Lake Tribune whines. “The reason for brandishing guns is hard to fathom.”
If they were actually brandishing them, it would be. Except Utah criminal code is quite clear that:
“‘Threatening manner’ does not include: the possession of a dangerous weapon, whether visible or concealed, without additional behavior which is threatening…”
“The question, then, to the armed participants is: What exactly did you have in mind?” the missive continues. “What is the unarmed citizen to think? Are the guns meant to intimidate, to bully the majority? That’s not democracy, that’s fascism.”
What the demonstrators had in mind is obvious to anyone who cared to listen to their concerns rather than immediately dive into prejudice against the very thing the Founders deemed “necessary to the security of a free State.” They don’t want usurpers to violate the oaths they took and infringe on the tools for preserving that freedom.
What the unarmed citizen should be thinking, if he has any self-respect, is “Why am I forsaking my rights and shirking my duty, and further trying to undermine the rights of my countrymen?”
Demonstratively advocating for those rights is now “bullying”? Kind of like the way gun-grabbers equate self-defense with vigilantism…?
As for fascism threatening the rights of the majority, our opinionated critic has things exactly wrong. The Bill of Rights is meant to ensure against the tyranny of the majority, the wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner scenario. If he wants to get technical, fascist archetype Benito Mussolini won the popular vote in the 1924 Italian general election by a two-thirds majority landslide.
Our lecturer goes on to insist, on his own say-so, that 90% of Utahns want “universal background checks,” that doing so will save lives, that infringements do not violate the Second Amendment, and that those opposed don’t care about the lives of others and many are probably criminals to boot.
Again, criminals don’t give a damn about background checks—they don’t go through them. Prior restraints on a right by definition infringe. And no less an authority than the National Institute of Justice in its “Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies” concluded:
“Effectiveness depends on the ability to reduce straw purchasing, requiring gun registration…”
That’ll be the next demand.
But first, he expects us to endure more insults: We don’t want a safe environment for ourselves and our children. Evidently, it would be better if all those lives saved by armed citizens, for the most part by brandishing (using the term correctly and lawfully this time) would have been taken.
As for people being scared, how we’re responsible for someone else’s hoplophobia is left unexplained. We can’t control how others choose to feel, nor the degree of rationality they bring to their decision to quiver and melt. What we can do is point to every NRA Annual Meeting within recent memory, and the recent armed rally in Virginia, where tens of thousands of armed citizens conducted themselves with extraordinary camaraderie and consideration.
And as for the “gun deaths” he decries, it fair to point out the overwhelming majority are committed by lawbreakers in “progressive”-controlled cities, and that he would be hard-pressed to find even one committed by one of the five million NRA members, arguably the most heavily-armed civilian population on the planet. Predominant “gun control” laws and generational political and social sentiment discourage average urban citizens from keeping and bearing arms, and the majority he so values are conditioned to vote unquestioningly for anti-gun Democrats.
“You have a Second Amendment right to have a gun in the home for self-defense and that’s where your gun should remain for a rally,” he concludes, once more astoundingly wrong on all counts. The truth is, if he wanted to be consistent with the stance that guns are to be feared and having them endangers children, the home would be the last place he’d want them. It’s reasonable to expect he no doubt doesn’t. And of course, it’s not just “keep,” it’s also “bear.” Otherwise, we’re pretty much talking about the world outside our doors being one big “gun-free zone,” and we can see how well those have worked out.
More troubling than an anti-rights zealot being wrong about practically everything he spews is the approving reaction from comment posters. We’re treated to no shortage of compliments to the writer for his wise insights, to Alinsky Rule 5 ridicule, to insinuations about the intellect and/or masculinity of the rally-goers, as well as the obligatory Fudd kapo sharing his big “I’m a hunter, but.” They bring nothing to mind so much as a classic essay and longtime favorite because it rings so true to experience, “The Anti-Gun Male.”
Those of us who have a lot of respect for the type of forebear who could tame a wilderness against all odds scratch our heads at the worthless heirs of liberty insisting not only on squandering their birthright but demanding we forsake ours as well. That’s not going to happen, and if that means occasionally reminding indignant and contemptible bedwetters that we will not disarm and have the means and will to resist attempts to make us, then so be it. They ought to be thanking us for discouraging them from working up the nerve to really do something stupid.
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.