Newspaper Editor’s Gun Control Desires Don’t Mesh With Other Asks

The right to keep and bear arms is preserved in the Second Amendment, but like many other rights, there are always people who think those shouldn’t be as absolute as the Constitution makes them. There are people who want to outlaw so-called hate speech, which is a problem when you think about what all they call hate, or want to tell churches what parts of the Bible they can uphold.

It’s just a lot more common with the Second Amendment.

While it’s annoying to see people who blame guns for all the ills of the world, I don’t know if they’re the worst of the bunch. Sometimes, I think it’s far worse when people seem to understand that gun control doesn’t solve things, at least on some level, yet still want to infringe on our rights.

For example, this paper’s editor:

It’s good to know a delegation of faith leaders delivered a letter to Gov. Tim Walz urging him to succeed in his effort to ban assault weapons and high-capacity ammo magazines.

The delegation, comprised of Christian, Jewish, Muslim and interfaith leaders, was representing more than 700 faith leaders in Minnesota.

The letter states this: “A ban on assault weapons is not a partisan issue; it’s a moral one. These weapons were designed for the battlefield, not for our schools and churches. They are tools of war, not peace. Their only purpose is to inflict mass casualties, to maim and destroy. Protecting lives is a sacred duty. While we cannot erase the violence that has already occurred, you can make it far more difficult for someone to obtain these weapons tomorrow.”

Amen!

The author, Dennis Dalman, goes on to defend his belief in gun control, even as he acknowledges that there are far more ways to claim human lives, even in large numbers, than with a so-called assault weapon.

It seems like he almost gets it, but wants gun control just the same.

He ends this piece by saying:

What’s needed – badly needed! – are not just ironclad gun-safety laws but – yes, more outreach and access regarding mental-health resources. And then, beyond that, a comprehensive re-assessment of all the many sinister forces, deleterious influences and emotional damage that can lead festering people to perpetrate murder and mayhem.

So we need outreach and mental health resources? My question then is, if they’re likely to work for other weapons like the bombs Dalman mentions as being potentially used to cause a large number of causalties, then why won’t they be sufficient for those who would use a gun?

Dalman’s piece says gun control is just one form of “violence prevention,” but why trample our constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, even as he seems to acknowledge that even without guns, the violent would have the means to hurt people?

He seems to get that there’s a lot more going on under the surface, and that it needs to be addressed, so why the call for gun control on top of everything else?

It’s like he’s on the cusp of understanding, but is making every effort possible not to get it.

Guns have no volition of their own. They don’t have intelligence. They can’t make decisions. 

They’re tools. Nothing more, nothing less. It takes a human being to decide to hurt someone with one. If you’re going through the effort to try and reach out to people in a way to address their warped desire to hurt others, then you don’t need to infringe on gun rights at all.

But here we are.

Editor’s Note: The Schumer Shutdown is here. Rather than put the American people first, Chuck Schumer and the radical Democrats forced a government shutdown for healthcare for illegals. They own this.

Help us continue to report the truth about the Schumer Shutdown. Use promo code POTUS47 to get 74% off your VIP membership.