 |
| Beto is firing up the "ColdDeadHands" brigade. |
One of the most controversial statements to come out of the recent Democratic debate in Houston was Beto O’Rourke saying, “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47. We’re not going to allow [those] to be used against our fellow Americans anymore.”
A lot of people were unhappy with this statement, and they might not be who you would think. Yes, gun-rights activists immediately jumped on the statement as confirmation that progressives do indeed want to take away everyone’s guns.
But many who have been arguing in favor of stronger gun control laws also were displeased, to some degree, with Beto’s statement. “Thanks a lot, Beto,” was probably going through a lot of people’s minds.
A lot of people were unhappy with this statement, and they might not be who you would think. Yes, gun-rights activists immediately jumped on the statement as confirmation that progressives do indeed want to take away everyone’s guns.
But many who have been arguing in favor of stronger gun control laws also were displeased, to some degree, with Beto’s statement. “Thanks a lot, Beto,” was probably going through a lot of people’s minds.
For years, we’ve had to deal with the paranoia of gun-rights activists who insist, with little evidence, that Democrats are coming for their guns. I have had many arguments with these folks and they nearly always make a similar charge: “You won’t be happy until all Americans are disarmed,” or some variation of that statement. When they argue with me about gun control, they pretty much assume that I believe that all Americans should give up all their guns.
It doesn’t matter how much I try to correct the record: “I don’t want to take your guns, I just think background checks should cover all purchases,” I say, but they will not listen. They know my real agenda, much better than I do, apparently.
It doesn’t matter how much I try to correct the record: “I don’t want to take your guns, I just think background checks should cover all purchases,” I say, but they will not listen. They know my real agenda, much better than I do, apparently.
Now Beto has fed their suspicions by saying yes, he wants a program that will take military-style assault rifles away from Americans. He supports a mandatory buyback, instead of a voluntary one, for such weapons. This goes further than most Democrats have gone in the past—and further than the other Dem candidates for the Presidency.
O’Rourke has handed 2ndAmendment absolutists a hammer with which to pound all Democratic candidates who support gun control, the thinking goes. And the pounding will be relentless.
Sure enough, my most pro-gun Facebook friend recently posted: “If you think that candidate O’Rourke’s opinion on gun control is any different from the other Democratic candidates he faces, you’re being duped.”
Again, the assumption is that what Democrats *really* want is to take away people’s guns. That they march in lockstep. That the gun-control agenda seeks to deny people their rights, not save people’s lives. The pro-gun position on this issue is clear, consistent, and now has new fuel.
But here’s my conclusion about the political dangers of Beto’s willingness to “go there” on this particular issue: It doesn’t matter.
Gun-rights activists are going to say this anyhow. They’ve been saying it. They will continue to say it, no matter how much we protest, or show them evidence that taking away all guns is not our ultimate goal. In this debate, too often, facts don’t matter. Intentions don’t matter. Heck, results don’t even matter.
All we can do is what we always have done: be a voice of reason. Point out that different candidates have different positions. Point out that buybacks of assault weapons have been done in other countries to good effect—and gun violence rates there have dropped. Point out that the focus of most gun control groups has been on background checks and red flag laws—measures that most Americans, most gun owners, and most NRA members actually agree on. And most of all, point out the intolerable cost of continuing to do nothing, while our fellow Americans die on a daily basis.
There is a huge amount of support for reasonable gun control reforms in the United States. We should be glad that this is front and center in our national debate, though we grieve for the incidents that have made it so. This is an issue Democrats have been winning on. They will continue to win on it, because they have the support of the American people, including gun owners.
I believe Beto is sincere about his position on a mandatory buyback. I don’t happen to agree that the policy, as described so far, is the best solution to our gun violence problem. I believe it would be difficult if not impossible to enact a mandatory buyback program, not to mention very expensive. I also note that it’s a very politically expedient position for O’Rourke as well, boosting his stature and popularity in a presidential campaign that had been flagging. All these points can be discussed rationally among people of good will.
But that won’t happen with those locked into an irrational and unproductive position on a deadly serious problem. So, let them say what they want. The rest of us, the majority of Americans, can keep working on a solution to make our people, and our future, safer.
Again, the assumption is that what Democrats *really* want is to take away people’s guns. That they march in lockstep. That the gun-control agenda seeks to deny people their rights, not save people’s lives. The pro-gun position on this issue is clear, consistent, and now has new fuel.
But here’s my conclusion about the political dangers of Beto’s willingness to “go there” on this particular issue: It doesn’t matter.
Gun-rights activists are going to say this anyhow. They’ve been saying it. They will continue to say it, no matter how much we protest, or show them evidence that taking away all guns is not our ultimate goal. In this debate, too often, facts don’t matter. Intentions don’t matter. Heck, results don’t even matter.
All we can do is what we always have done: be a voice of reason. Point out that different candidates have different positions. Point out that buybacks of assault weapons have been done in other countries to good effect—and gun violence rates there have dropped. Point out that the focus of most gun control groups has been on background checks and red flag laws—measures that most Americans, most gun owners, and most NRA members actually agree on. And most of all, point out the intolerable cost of continuing to do nothing, while our fellow Americans die on a daily basis.
There is a huge amount of support for reasonable gun control reforms in the United States. We should be glad that this is front and center in our national debate, though we grieve for the incidents that have made it so. This is an issue Democrats have been winning on. They will continue to win on it, because they have the support of the American people, including gun owners.
I believe Beto is sincere about his position on a mandatory buyback. I don’t happen to agree that the policy, as described so far, is the best solution to our gun violence problem. I believe it would be difficult if not impossible to enact a mandatory buyback program, not to mention very expensive. I also note that it’s a very politically expedient position for O’Rourke as well, boosting his stature and popularity in a presidential campaign that had been flagging. All these points can be discussed rationally among people of good will.
But that won’t happen with those locked into an irrational and unproductive position on a deadly serious problem. So, let them say what they want. The rest of us, the majority of Americans, can keep working on a solution to make our people, and our future, safer.
No comments:
Post a Comment