Liberal Blindness: Gun Rights Are Human Rights

Why can’t liberals act like liberals when it comes to privately owned or carried firearms?

When a liberal hears about “enhanced interrogation,” he will usually condemn it as torture. Torture is immoral and barbaric, he will say. No government should use torture to acquire information. A liberal will typically claim that torture will mostly not work to give truthful information, but even if it did, the good results do not justify the practice. People, even if they turn out to be evil, guilty, and dangerous have a right not to be tortured.

I hear a great many liberals object to the nudie scanners and the “enhanced pat downs” that the TSA perpetrates on people in airports. But what if that scanner stops someone who plans violence on the plane? So far, the TSA’s nudie scanners have proven useless, but what about that one time? Typically, a liberal will insist it doesn’t matter. The Fourth Amendment is clear on the issue and it doesn’t all these types of abuse on Americans.

I have read and heard Leftists or liberals talk about indefinite detention and prisons where people are held without trial. This is evil, as far as liberals are concerned. But what if these people are terrorists who wish to conspire with others so that they kill thousands of people, as has actually happened? Doesn’t matter. People have a right to a trial to decide their guilt or innocence. Yes it is true that observing habeas corpus might result in an evildoer getting his freedom and then harming others, but that is simply a risk that a free country must take. You can’t lock people up without a trial that results in a conviction as the result of due process.

Liberals often condemn warrantless wiretaps. You are supposed to show cause to a judge and then get a search warrant for the specific thing you are searching for. You are not supposed to be able to “toss” a person’s house and you’re not supposed to be able to read his email or eavesdrop on his phone conversations. But isn’t it possible we might intercept a terrorist by spying on all Americans? Sure it is possible, but it is still wrong. When the government acts in this way, it is violating a person’s rights.

Behind all of these principles are the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon as well as some other terrorist attacks. Thousands of people have died because the government did not intercept the terrorists who hijacked the planes. So liberals know that the practice of their principles have real life consequences. But if a warmonger accuses them of getting Americans killed because of the limitations they want to see placed on government, they don’t seem too concerned. While murders are a tragedy, America is better off with a government that risks such loss of life and stays within the bounds of the civil rights spelled out in the US Constitution.

I could add other examples. The ACLU will defend the right of skinheads to express their beliefs in public, even though racist beliefs have led and sometimes still do lead to crimes. They simply insist that we have to live in a free society and deal with the consequences in a way that does not involve tampering with the freedoms.

So what happens to the Liberal brain when it thinks about privately held firearms?

Suddenly everything is reversed. In order to protect children (despite the fact that plenty of children have died in terrorist attacks), guns must be restricted. People should not be permitted to own guns or own certain kinds of guns.

And if you object to this violation of the Second Amendment you can be subject to raging assaults that virtually hold you accountable for the blood of innocents shed by sociopaths. Liberals will attack you as if you personally pulled the trigger. If you suggest any other way that handgun crimes might be reduced, instead of violating the Second Amendment of the Bill of rights, you will be scorned.

I have to wonder if all that emotional scorn is generated as a defense mechanism to keep Liberals from becoming self-aware. Without the self-righteous anger, I think they might have to face the fact that they are being ridiculous.







Comments

comments

Mark Horne was born in Melbourne, Florida, but has also lived in Liberia, West Africa, and Kwajalein, Marshall Islands before graduating from high school. He is an experienced editor and freelance writer, working with Gary DeMar, George Grant, Chuck Colson, and many others. He earned a Master of Divinity from Covenant Theological Seminary and has pastored in Washington State, Oklahoma, and St. Louis, Missouri. Mark is a prolific writer and the author of a layperson's commentary on the Gospel of Mark, a tract on baptism, and a biography of J.R. R. Tolkien. He currently resides in the St. Louis area.

Posted in Constitution, Gun Control, Liberalism, National Security, Police State, Terrorism Tagged with: , , , ,
  • Carl Stevenson

    Gun control fanatics are leftist control freak tyrant wannabes. They generally misrepresent their goals, but occasionally slip up and let the truth out:
    “Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn’t matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.” Sara Brady Chairman, Handgun Control Inc, to Senator Howard Metzenbaum The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3.
    THAT is what gun control is all about. Nothing else.

  • Guest

    … and lurking behind ALL of the toxic, “progressive” anti-gun rhetoric is a huge “elephant” in the room that progressive’s pretend is not there: They want to disarm the harmless to protect the harmless! Somehow, they conveniently overlook a very inconvenient question: WHO WILL DO THE ENFORCING? Where on Earth can we find a group of fallible, corruptible humans who can be trusted with exclusive access to firearms?. When all this is boiled down to it’s essence, we discover a fundamental, objectively moral fact: Even if 99% of all the private gun owners on earth suddenly went postal and started killing everyone in sight, we could STILL not justify denying or unduly encumbering the natural RIGHT of gun ownership to the remaining 1% who had harmed no one — PERIOD!
    Comments? Disagree?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Transue/100000268547442 Mike Transue

    … and lurking behind ALL of the toxic, “progressive” anti-gun rhetoric is a huge “elephant” in the room that progressives pretend is not there: They want to disarm the harmless to protect the harmless! Somehow, they conveniently overlook a very inconvenient question: WHO WILL DO THE ENFORCING? Where on Earth can we find a group of fallible, corruptible humans who can be trusted with exclusive access to firearms?. When all this is boiled down to it’s essence, we discover a fundamental, objectively moral fact: Even if 99% of all the private gun owners on earth suddenly went postal and started killing everyone in sight, we could STILL not justify denying or unduly encumbering the natural RIGHT of gun ownership to the remaining 1% who had harmed no one — PERIOD!
    Comments? Disagree?

  • m7491

    What Romney SHOULD have said to the idiots who demonize him for having $250 million dollars!

    http://conservativevideos.com/2012/11/bill-whittle-explains-what-it-is-to-be-a-conservative-and-why-romney-lost/