Do
the anti-gun rights zealots really think that people are so stupid
they'll fall for these lies? Given what Shira Goodman wrote in “Gun
Bullies Back Down and Plan to Stay Away from Peaceful Gun Violence
Prevention Event” they must. Let's take her article apart
piece by piece. (Items in bold
are quotes from the article linked above.)
Concerned
Gun Owners of Pennsylvania made clear in their press
release that “CGOPA has canceled their counter-rallying
on Sunday out of respect for private property rights and the sanctity
of God's church.” They did this after CeasefirePA and their
collaborators were run out of Doylestown, PA and had to relocate to a
church in a nearby town.
“...CeaseFirePA,
Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, Mayors Against Illegal
Guns, and local groups like Bucks Safe are hosting a peaceful event
to greet the Sandy Hook Riders Team 26,...” Quite
true, the event is peaceful, but what violence are they calling for?
Read on.
“...
a group of cyclists riding in memory of the victims of gun violence
prevention...” Interesting
that they published this. We're the ones advocating gun rights,
they're the ones whose “gun violence prevention” is disarming
decent people preventing them from defending themselves. I guess that
makes their mourning appropriate. (Since they will no doubt correct
this typo a screen shot is included below as proof of their
sloppiness.)
“...and calling for stronger gun laws.” Last I checked laws are enforced by armed people with jails to confine other people in. An interesting position for alleged pacifists to take. They seem to be all for non-violence until is is time to disarm peaceful people like us activist gun owners. Then the violence and bullying become OK. Here's how I put it in my coverage of their two state May 11, 2013 event:
There
is a reason we stayed in Pennsylvania. We knew we couldn't go into
Trenton, New Jersey (where their rally started) with our guns. The
police would have arrested us. Even in Morrisville the township
threatened to arrest open carriers. We ignored those threats and they
backed down. Yet somehow the gun haters saw themselves as being
threatened. The fear was totally irrational. The open carriers would
have protected them had a criminal tried to harm them. Meanwhile, it
is they, the gun haters, that want to send armed law enforcement
officers after gun owners. Go figure.
“For
the last week, pro-gun organization Concerned Gun Owners of America
had been planning a counter-protest and blatantly trying to
intimidate supporters to avoid this event.”
No, it was the Concerned Gun Owners
of Pennsylvania that was holding the counter-protest. Obviously
accuracy isn't Ms. Goodman's forte.
“Members
of the group took to social media posting plans to carry firearms and
shout through megaphones at the peaceful gathering, but [we]
were not intimidated.”
Intimidated? Please, Ms. Goodman, post any threats of violence that were made
against your group. I know you won't because there were none. As
opposed to your group which advocates legal violence against us.
Regardless, please don't lie, the counter-protest was going to be
empty holster since guns aren't allowed in or near schools. (They originally were going to rally at Central Bucks West High School.) We
already know that these gun rights haters have an irrational fear of
guns. Are they now afraid of empty holsters too?
“...bullies
try to intimidate people because they’re insecure.”
I couldn't agree more. We libertarians live by the non-aggression
principle. The idea is that it is immoral to initiate the use of
force or threaten the use of force against others. We have the
confidence to say we will not use violence or threats nor will we
tolerate that kind of behavior against ourselves or others. I call on
all gun rights haters to renounce their advocacy of violence and join
with us in calling for a world in which no one aggresses against
anyone else.
Lastly,
I issue a challenge to Ms. Goodman and the others standing with her
to debate the issue with me. If you really think you know what you're talking
about we'll be debating soon.
Thank you for staying active with this issue and highlighting who the real aggressors are--the ones who advocate for violence and coercion to be used to disarm peaceful people.
ReplyDeleteThanks, PNN
DeleteWell Played Mr. Wolfe
ReplyDeleteThanks, A
DeleteGreat stuff, as always!
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
ReplyDelete“...and calling for stronger gun laws.” Last I checked laws are enforced by armed people with jails to confine other people in. An interesting position for alleged pacifists to take. They seem to be all for non-violence until is is time to disarm peaceful people like us activist gun owners. Then the violence and bullying become OK.
This is precisely the moral high ground that we gun rights champions must center our arguments upon.
Other arguments, including utilitarian arguments, are also necessary and valuable.
But the most morally unassailable argument is that peaceful gun owners are not the "violent" ones. The violent ones are those who point guns at peaceful gun owners and threaten to murder them if they do not hand over their private property.
Gun rights champion: "Is is morally acceptable for a person carrying a gun to approach someone and threaten to murder them if they refuse to hand over their private property?"
ReplyDeleteGun rights violator: "No, of course not"
Gun rights champion: "How about when the private property the gunman orders you to turn over to him is a firearm?"
Thank you Bevin & Nicholas.
ReplyDelete