Guns & Ammo column backing Illinois gun law brings vitriolic backlash, costs writer his job
I don’t have the time I’d like to properly comment on this story, but it makes me sick. What sort of compromise can we hope to achieve when one side will tear apart one of their own for calmly and rationally expressing a viewpoint that deviates even slightly from the extreme?
The one thing I will point out is this response from a gun rights advocate:
I’m going to stop there. Anyone who says “I believe in the Second Amendment but–” does not believe in the Second Amendment. They are not friends, they are not frenemies, they are enemies of The People of the Gun.
More than that, whether or not these nominal gun rights supporters (e.g., President Obama, Senator Charles Schumer) “believe” in the Second Amendment is irrelevant. As stated above, the right to keep and bear arms is a natural right, stemming from our natural right of self-defense. It doesn’t require belief, faith or political justification.
“The People of the Gun”? It’s like a religious fanaticism, and it’s nearly impossible to reason with religious fanatics; rational thought doesn’t enter the picture. There’s more to pick apart in this statement, but I really do need to get back to work, so I’ll let you read the full piece for now, and try to post more later.
The people of the gun are dangerous to this administration for they themselves think as individuals and the majority know for damn sure their own rights to bear arms. Frivolous lawsuits claiming 2nd degree murder when one defends their home from intrusion and is punished by state is putting the guns into the wrong hands. Mix that with an administration that chomps at the bit for every “mass shooting” to exploit their own agenda of destroying the 2nd amendment rights and one can see the slippery slope us as Americans are going today.
I would argue that The People of the Gun are dangerous, period (or full stop, for my British readers).
Instead of throwing out straw men like people not being able to use guns for self defense, let’s stay on topic, shall we? Let’s talk about how this author, with a history of supporting 2nd Amendment rights, was fired for praising a regulation on concealed carry permits. And how the editor felt the need to resign and apologize for publishing this very level-headed argument.
On topic then, the fact that this editor was indeed fired for praising a regulation on concealed carry permits is an outright chilling of their first amendment rights (freedom of speech). In essence, the editor is fired for expressing a view that doesn’t threaten others nor is it condoned by the constitution. Furthermore, the editor apologizing for his own free thought goes against his god given right to express an opinion with regards to a regulation on concealment