- Text smaller
- Text bigger
A couple of seemingly unrelated things happened over the past few
days that should serve to illuminate the uninitiated over the issue of
Over the weekend I had a conversation with my father-in-law about a
recently failed vote here in Missouri to pass a concealed carry
measure. The Missouri vote — the first like it ever in the history of
the U.S. — brought the issue of concealed carry to the people, since
the legislature (which passed the bill multiple times over the past
several years) never could get it signed by our socialist governor Mel
Carnahan. Knowing I write (and talk) about such issues for a living, my
father-in-law sought to find out what the issue really was all about and
its implications, now that it has failed.
He told me candidly that he neither understood nor cared much about
the issue because he doesn’t own a firearm, hasn’t shot a rifle since
Uncle Sam made him learn to use one in Korea, and doesn’t plan on buying
one anytime soon. But after I explained to him that the issue was less
about guns and more about allowing people to have the basic right of
self-defense, using the most efficient means possible (a firearm), he
better understood the concealed carry issue and would more likely
support it the next time it comes up.
At about the same time our conversation was taking place, Forbes
Magazine was compiling its annual “100 Richest Americans” list. As
I scanned the list it occurred to me that there were more than an
average number of anti-gunners who are super-wealthy.
What does that have to do with gun control? Well, consider that that
these super rich anti-gunners probably have not had to worry about
personal security — being robbed, beaten, attacked, raped, or ripped
off — any time in recent history because all of them, I am certain,
have some sort of advanced protective shield surrounding them at all
times. Therefore, it’s easy for them to advocate gun control because
they don’t need guns and they don’t have to worry much about the bad
things that can and do happen to the rest of us.
That makes this very ironic — well, hypocritical really —
because while they live safely with personal bodyguards and high-tech
security, they work to deny you and me even the most basic right and
opportunity to protect ourselves from harm.
Don’t get me wrong — I am not begrudging these people one red cent.
In America, they have every right to be rich, every right to speak their
mind about any issue they choose, and every right to be hypocritical.
But I just thought that since many of these super-wealthy also wield a
great deal of cultural influence — if for no other reason than because
of their wealth — it was appropriate to let you know that they don’t
live by the same safety standards they are trying to foist upon us.
For example, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates — easily the world’s
richest man with $90 billion — a few years ago spent some pocket change
(a couple million bucks) in an unsuccessful attempt to help pass new gun
restrictions in Washington state. Billionaire media mogul Ted Turner’s
anti-gun views are well known; in fact, he recently pledged a billion
dollars of his fortune to the United Nations, a rabid anti-gun
Liberal and fiscally conservative politicians are equally
hypocritical when it comes to gun control. Lots of congressmen and
senators carry concealed weapons themselves; Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the
press revealed a few years ago, is one such hypocritical anti-gunner.
It was largely due to her efforts that the current assault weapons bans
and Brady-style background checks are now the laws of the land, yet she
thought nothing of the law when it came to carrying a weapon herself.
The irony, however, worsens when you consider that every congressman has
full use of the nation’s best protective agency — the Secret Service —
no matter where they go. Yet you and I are left to our own — usually
unarmed — devices when we travel.
In fact, the most recent gun-control effort, which is being wrapped
in a so-called Juvenile Crime Bill, is largely about instituting more
gun control. Though politicians and anti-gun zealots like Rosie
O’Donnell are trying to put a “For the Children” face on this invasive
and repressive new effort, millions of Americans are not fooled anymore
and see this bill for what it really is.
So tired are the people of the liberal dogma surrounding gun control
that for the first time in decades, traditionally vehement anti-gun
communities are now considering lifting some of the most draconian gun
control measures. That’s because after years of failed liberal gun
control policies, which have left their citizens terrorized and dead,
even places like — now get this — Washington, D.C., are
thinking about lifting bans on handgun ownership.
That trend dovetails with the national endeavor to institute more
concealed carry laws in various states and cities. Let’s face it — the
only reasons these laws are passing is because Americans are sick and
tired of being endangered, as well as becoming fed up with the hypocrisy
and double standards applied to them by anti-gun activists and
politicians. For years millions of Americans have surrendered their
freedom for a little security and, as a result, have received neither in
I told my father-in-law recently that I shared his view on guns —
neither of us wish that we needed them to protect ourselves in this
country. But the cold, hard reality is this: We do need to be protected
against those who prey upon us, and as it stands, guns are the best way
to obtain such protection. Besides, our Constitution says we have the
right to them.
So what’s the problem?
The problem is that those who see no use for a gun insist that the
rest of us have no use for them either, even though we’re miles apart in
social status and the ability to purchase or secure other forms of
protection. Not only that, but there remains a very sizable number of
Americans who neither trust nor want others to protect them. In this
country, that is supposed to be their right.
The solution, to be sure, is at hand, but there are not nearly enough
courageous powerbrokers left to implement it. To end the sanctimony
over gun control the fabulously wealthy and the politically connected
can either leave our guns alone or purchase for each of us the same
level of protection they buy for themselves.
Since neither of those options is realistic, perhaps the best thing
to do is have conversations of the sort I had with my father-in-law
about our rights, responsibilities, and the hypocrisy rife within the
gun control issue. That may be the only way we can stop the
anti-gunners from imposing upon all of us a level of security they would
never consider for themselves.