Ms. Gunn-Barrett candidly laid bare a basic premise of the gun ban mindset that usually goes unspoken: there’s no such thing as a law-abiding gun owner.
“You can be perfectly law-abiding one moment,” said Ms. Gunn-Barrett during the debate, “and then the next moment you can be a criminal and do something criminal and wrong, like shoot up a movie theater, or kill your spouse during an argument.” Regulation of people and behavior is needed, she said, “to protect us against our own stupidity and our own irrationality.”
Those are the words of Leah Gunn-Barrett, Executive Director of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence. As long as this is the other side of the conversation, there is NO common ground to be had. This is akin to ask a jihadist for a peaceful solution when he has clearly stated the only “good” outcome is death to all “infidels.” To her and others of her mindset, we are all just waiting to go off. We are all paranoid, borderline psychotic individuals who will lay waste to the world around is at any moment.
Gunn-Barrett recently debated Scott Bach at New York University in a class on culture wars according to his post at Ammoland.com. Gunn-Barrett contends, as many other gun-control proponents do, that guns constitute a public health crisis and that the United States Supreme Court was in error when they said the Second Amendment denotes an individual, rather than collective, right to keep and bear arms. She also says the NRA represents manufacturers for their financial benefit rather than championing the rights of its individual members. None of these claims or opinions should surprise us. We’ve heard them all before.
You can read more in Bach’s post over at Ammoland.com. There’s nothing ground breaking in Bach’s point made in the debate or in his article. Most of us would agree that one’s personal safety is your own responsibility and points out that the government has time and time again argued that they are not responsible for your personal safety. And yet, gun-control supporters continue the constant pursuit of ways to limit the rights and means by which one defends himself.