Stop Trying to Reason with Anti-Gun Advocates
The anti-gun advocates are out in force. These are probably the same people that own a gun or hire bodyguards with guns to protect them. Even if a law is passed outlawing gun ownership, most gun owners will disobey the law. Criminals will find a way to buy guns like they find ways to buy and sell illegal drugs.
By the time any anti-gun prohibition goes into effect, guns will be sold by the millions.
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is a perfect example of someone who decries gun ownership except for people like himself. He’s like the Communist leader who opposes capitalism for the people but not himself. Bloomberg’s surrounded by armed guards for his protection. President Obama has the Secret Service to protect him. Sports and movie stars hire bodyguards to protect them from adoring fans and crazy stalkers.
Stephen Halbrook sums up how gun ownership only has limited restrictions:
“The Nazis were ‘pro-gun’ for themselves, the Gestapo and other police, the Wehrmacht (armed forces), and citizens they trusted as having been indoctrinated with the Nazi ideology; they were ‘anti-gun’ for Jews, political opponents, and any and every person who might not march lock step with the National Socialist program.”1
Bloomberg told CNN’s Piers Morgan that he doesn’t “understand why police officers across this country don’t stand up collectively and say we’re going to go on strike, we’re not going to protect you unless you, the public, through your legislature, do what’s required to keep us safe.”
Who’s the “us”? Why can’t we have the same rights as any public official? Why can’t I carry a gun to protect myself from the same type of people that might harm the mayor or the president? I have enemies out there. You should read some of my emails.
Many people have forgotten Carl Rowan (1925–2000). Rowan was a nationally-syndicated op-ed columnist for the Washington Post and the Chicago Sun-Times. He was one of the most prominent black journalists of the 20th century. He was also a gun-control advocate.
In a 1981 column, he advocated “a law that says anyone found in possession of a handgun except a legitimate officer of the law goes to jail — period.” In 1985, he called for “A complete and universal federal ban on the sale, manufacture, importation and possession of handguns (except for authorized police and military personnel).”
On June 14, 1988, Rowan gained national attention when he shot a teenage trespasser who was on his property illegally. Rowan was charged for firing a gun that he did not legally own. Rowan was arrested and tried. During the trial, he argued that he had the right to use whatever means necessary to protect himself and his family.
In 2006, Rosie O’Donnell said that “the right to, to bear arms” is “not really a right.” What she meant to say is that it’s only a right for some people; it does not apply to people like her. During the April 19, 1999, broadcast of her talk show, she stated, “You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun, I think you should go to prison.”
This all changed when she felt threatened. An article in the May 25, 2000 issue of The Stamford Advocate reported the following:
An application for a concealed weapon permit by Rosie O’Donnell’s bodyguard has some Greenwich neighbors of the television personality and gun-control advocate up in arms. The application, which is pending with the Greenwich Police Department, led to a rumor that the permit’s purpose would be to allow the bodyguard to legally carry a gun when accompanying O’Donnell’s son to public school in September.
These elitists live above the law. Their lives are more valuable than yours or mine. They are the philosopher kings who know what’s best for the “little people.” No thank you, Mayor Bloomberg. I would rather have a weapon at the ready rather than have to wait for a police officer to arrive. I would rather have to explain why I shot a guy rather than a police officer explaining to my wife why I got shot and died.
- Stephen P. Halbrook, “Nazism, the Second Amendment, and the NRA: A Reply to Professor [Bernard] Harcourt,” Texas Review of Law & Politics, vol. 11 (2006), 116-117. [↩]