[Update] When I initially posted this, I missed a closing tag which prevented everything after the blockquote from showing up. I fixed it so now there’s more content, it’s not that I added the additional content later, I just fixed the tag so that what was there is now visible. My bad [/update]
It’s rare that an anti-freedom advocate so clearly articulates why they oppose free people being properly equipped to defend themselves, but a “Code Pink” organizer in Cleveland this week accidentally did so:
McCracken says she’s not sure why relatively few people showed up to protest in Cleveland, but she believes many were scared off by Ohio’s open carry laws, which allow people to carry firearms
You see…they know that if we commoners are “allowed” to defend ourselves against assault and injury, they have no power to bully people, harangue people and shut down free speech. In other words, laws that liberalize the ability of free people to be properly equipped to defend themselves against tyranny (governmental or non-governmental) ensure that freedom reigns supreme and prevents those tyrants from employing their oppressive tactics.
This is, of course, related to a couple of other points I and other gun rights activists have raised from time to time:
1. If gun owners were really as dangerous and prone to violence as anti-gunners accuse us of, there wouldn’t be any anti-gunners left by now.
2. Every time I’ve ever been involved in a public demonstration, meeting or other event that pitted pro-gun activists against anti-gun activists, it was ALWAYS the anti-gunners who acted angry, tried to shout down opponents, got in people’s faces and just acted violent in general. The pro-gun activists were always respectful of the oppositions speakers, calm, level headed and polite.
3. Which raises one of the possibilities as to why anti-gunners are so virulently anti-gun: they know good and well that they are not personally emotionally stable enough to even trust themselves with the tools of self-defense. They project that untrustworthiness and instability onto everyone else; thus assuming that no one should be afforded those rights.
4. And finally, it’s not about the guns, it’s about the control.