The Senate Judiciary Committee has been having hearings on gun control. On the pro gun control side, Gabby Giffords, victim of a crazed gunman, said “too many children are dying.” At a hearing in Connecticut, the father of a child murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary gave similar testimony (and gave some in the blinded-by-bias media a chance to show off their mad video editing skillz).
And on the pro Second Amendment side we most often hear testimony from Wayne LaPierre, somebody else from the NRA, or lawyers arguing on behalf of the Second Amendment. They make arguments on constitutional grounds and even speak about people whose lives are saved because they had guns — but where are those people? Ask them to come forward at hearings and press conferences.
Let’s face it, the left usually kicks the right’s ass when it comes to emotional arguments that are designed to tug at the heart so aggressively that onlookers are too distracted to use their heads to think through what’s actually being presented to them (and that’s not necessarily a bad thing as we pride ourselves on being on the side of reason). However, emotional arguments can be constructed without selling out on the logic and common sense end of things, and that’s where the right needs to do a better job.
There certainly are no shortages of children (and adults) whose lives have been saved because of gun ownership. Almost every day there’s a story. Here’s one from just the day before yesterday:
A home invasion suspect was arrested at a hospital after a mother shot him during the crime at a Montgomery County home, deputies said Wednesday.
Erin, who asked to be identified only by her first name, told Local 2 she was putting her 6-year-old son to bed when she heard a loud noise coming from her bedroom on Mink Lake Drive Friday night.
“I threw the cover over my son and I took off running, screaming to the living room to let my dogs out,” she said.
Erin said she turned around and saw three masked men, pointing a gun right at her.
The woman had a gun — at least two actually — and it didn’t end well for one of the criminals. The other two fled, and the mother and her son were unharmed as a result.
Why can’t people like this be asked to testify against gun control? I’m sure some would agree to. Find mothers and fathers with children who can honestly say “if some of the more radical gun control measures you’re proposing were the law, my son, daughter and I would more than likely be dead right now.” I know, I know… a tragedy that happened is more newsworthy to the MSM than a tragedy that was averted (especially if they think the former helps push a liberal agenda and the latter a conservative one), but the pro Second Amendment side needs to more effectively address the method with which they’re being demonized.
Or… should we adhere to the “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” rule? After all, the NRA has a higher popularity rating than President Obama (file that under “things you’ll never learn on the mainstream network newscasts”) and it’s looking like Dianne Feinstein’s gun control bill is DOA in the Senate — even Harry Reid won’t support it. Given all that, should the pro-Second Amendment side leave well enough alone? In my opinion that would be a fatal error.
Update: Gun rights advocates should also feature people like this man more as a reminder that the Second Amendment wasn’t written with hunting in mind.