This article made one good point that I doubt many other liberals will admit to:
Skeptics of expansive gun rights need to respond intelligently. The smart response is not scorn or exaggeration. For better or worse, gun ownership has come to symbolize a range of deeply felt ideas about culture and government authority. Making fun of people who view their firearms as emblems of liberty and traditional values (however they define those values) will neither change minds nor repeal legislation.
While it is a little late, I appreciate the acknowledgement. It would also be a good idea to point out that trying to punish “gun culture” wherever they can is probably only going to bring more pushback against liberals.
Sadly, I can’t say I appreciate much else in the article. Entitled, “How to Understand Georgia’s ‘Guns Everywhere’ Law: Four Blunt Points,” it deals with the fact that the governor is expected to sign “a so-called guns-everywhere law, making it easier for firearm permit holders to take their weapons into bars, churches, and even airports.”
I just quoted part of the third “blunt point.” The first one is half right:
The Newtown school massacre led to “guns everywhere.” Perverse as it may sound, the horrific mass shooting in December 2012 at Sandy Hook Elementary produced a burst of state-level gun control bills around the country and then triggered a much stronger pro-gun backlash. The counter-reaction has now reached its apogee in Georgia. In the past year alone, 21 states have enacted laws expanding gun rights, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Several states added piecemeal provisions allowing firearms on college campuses or in bars or churches. Georgia’s politicians, egged on by the National Rifle Association, have gone for broke.
So we’re winning!
But it isn’t just in response to the “burst of state-level gun control bills.” What the article can’t seem to admit is that Americans are responding to Sandy Hook itself, as well as other major mass shootings. The media can insist that such news only justifies gun control, but people being killed in a “gun free” zone by a lone killer teaches a different lesson to many Americans. “Guns everywhere” is a security matter as well as an affirmation of the Second Amendment and the inalienable right to be armed.
The second “blunt point” refers to “the NRA’s structural advantage on gun control.” This may be totally correct depending on what the vague term, “structural advantage” is supposed to mean. To my mind, it is a way to avoid saying, “More people agree with the NRA than with gun control advocates.” The bottom line is that the NRA has zero hold on the American people. The American people are the ones who created the NRA. It is responding to what they want. Any argument that pretends the NRA is an organization manipulating or controlling the American public is an argument for a fantasy world, not for reality.
Finally, the article advises, “The best response to gun-rights extremism is a focus on fighting crime.” It appeals to New York City as a model, which has lowered crime while remaining a no-second-amendment zone. Well, some of us have a few problems with New York City’s methods. I don’t want to see stop-and-frisk become national policy. Nor do I want to see other police departments following NYPD’s secrecy practices.
I think that kind of thing is going to increase “gun-rights extremism.”