home > archive > 2013 > this article

Revealing gun-owners names reveals truth

By Selwyn Duke
web posted December 31, 2012

A birdcage liner in my county of Westchester, NY, The Journal News, has made national headlines by releasing the addresses of county residents licensed to own a handgun. The paper claims that in the wake of the Newtown shooting, citizens want to know more about the arsenals their neighbors may possess. Of course, the rag's real motivation is obvious: it wants to "out" firearms owners. The thinking is, "Hey, you want to own a gun? Then we're going to put you in the pusillanimous people's pillory, where all things manly and traditional belong." Hence the title of the Journal piece, "The gun owner next door," which could be followed with "The pedophile next door" or "The terrorist next door." Ooh, scary. I'm more worried about the journalist next door.

Not surprisingly, the paper is taking a lot of heat for revealing who is packing heat. And one of the more common criticisms reveals a truth.

Many people have pointed out that the Journal's article not only alerts us about who is armed, it also tells criminals who is unarmed and hence easy prey. This isn't entirely correct, as the paper could only provide information about licensed handguns and not far more common (as they don't have to be licensed in Westchester) rifles and shotguns or illegally owned weapons. But that's irrelevant to the point here. To wit:

If it's so dangerous to identify homes that are "gun-free" zones, why do we do it to our schools?

Unlike private residences, a criminal can actually bank on a school being gun free and thus soft-target rich. And we not only ensure this is the case, we, incredibly, announce it to the world.

You don't have to support Second Amendment rights to accept my point. You only have to recognize reality. And to analogize the situation, how secure would our country be if we unilaterally disarmed and then announced to the world that the US is a weapon-free zone? Sure, you may not like that nuclear and other weapons exist.

But they do exist.

Aggression exists.

Opportunistic minds exist.

Evil exists.

And there's nothing more stupid than being a cat that declaws himself and then brags about his defenselessness.

If anyone disagrees, I ask only that he practice what he preaches. Get a big sign, and write on it in bold lettering "Gun Free Zone."

Then put it on your house.

Go ahead. Make a miscreant's day.

If you're unwilling to do this, then why would you do it to America's schoolchildren? Such a thing isn't just unwise.

It's immoral.

Grossly immoral.

After all, you're then willing to imperil children for…what reason? Because the symbolism of announcing that you've supposedly rid schools of some evil (that isn't) makes you feel as if you've done your good deed for the day? Wise up.

Then there's a truth revealed by the Journal's urinal-ism itself. Why do residents licensed to own handguns concern the paper at all? I thought the Assault-stream Media just requested "reasonable" concessions from gun owners, such as the criminalization of the AR-15 rifle, the, as some have put it, "scary black gun." This they want even though it isn't as high-powered as many hunting rifles. Even though:

  • Its caliber is the same as a .22 (small).
  • Its rapidity of fire is the same as any other semi-automatic firearm, which means most all firearms owned in America.
  • Such weapons are used in less than two percent of gun crimes (except for legally owned ones, which are used in approximately zero percent of gun crimes).

But, hey, it's scary.

And black.

And that's good enough.

But, Journal News, as with the New York Post two weeks ago, we can see beneath your gun-hater's hood. You say that all you want is the criminalization of high-capacity magazines and semi-automatic rifles with a military appearance. And this is true in a sense. You situational-values-set statists live in the moment, and such legislation is all you want right now because it's all you can get right now. But you're masters of incrementalism; you say you only want an inch until you can get a foot, and then you say you only want a foot until you can get the shoe. What I'd give you is the boot.

This is because I know that liberals remain satisfied with compromises until about the time the ink dries. They ultimately will never settle for half a loaf — and they want all our guns. We should only give them all our undying contempt. ESR

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com.






Site Map

E-mail ESR



© 1996-2024, Enter Stage Right and/or its creators. All rights reserved.