SELF-RIGHTEOUS GUN CONTROL ADVOCATES: The Dangerous Enemies of a Basic Moral Truth

Written by Steve Pauwels on December 18, 2015

The sanctimony of the gun-grabbing Left is so thick it’d stop a close-range .50 caliber round. Yet, ironically, it’s their hostility toward Americans’ self-defense rights which ends up egregiously defiling bedrock morality. 

Consider the response to the recent San Bernardino mass-shooting: Like insufferable clockwork, Barack Obama and his fellow anti-Second Amendment stooges reacted with demands for expanding gun control. More specifically, that would be “common sense” gun laws, as our president and his press spokesman Josh Earnest folksily styled it; or “sensible” gun laws, in the similarly tedious verbiage of uber-Lefty Senator Barbara Boxer

Put another way by our antinomian commander-in-chief: “[I}t’s … important for all of us, including our legislatures”  to “make it a little harder for ” miscreants to carry out violent acts with guns.

The malfeasant Obama, and the Leftist, self-defense-sapping agitprop he and his party embrace, strike directly at the heart of a principle smoldering beneath the entire debate: human beings’ right to protect themselves, their loved ones and others when potentially lethal danger looms. 

Trending: ClashPoll: This State Considers BANNING Trans Students From Competing Against Opposite Sex – Do YOU Agree?

Our magnificent founders grasped this axiom exuberantly and formally; thus: the Second Amendment to our Constitution. At best, progressives pay vacuous, disingenuous lip-service to it, at worst, they candidly snarl at it. (Then again, denizens of Liberal precincts habitually give short shrift to principle whenever it inconveniences their vast, soul-shriveling, liberty-quenching schemes.)

Meanwhile, there’s a sizable cohort of citizens who’d very much appreciate being permitted to protect themselves and their families unhindered; who, in fact, regard it a sacred duty to do so. Robert Knight snarkily made the point in a recent Washington Times column: “You mean we’re allowed to resist criminals or terrorists? All by ourselves?”

Two millenia ago, a fellow named Paul leveled the harshest possible denunciation at neglecters of  hearth-n-home (1 Timothy 5:8). You’ve gotta wonder what he’d think — furthermore, what our founding titans would think — of a government regime eager to make it as difficult as possible for persons to obtain the basic means of safeguarding their households

This is not just a pragmatic issue  — it’s a moral one. 

Voters have grown numbingly accustomed to the gargantuan arrogance of the statists, but this deathless dispute over “the right to keep and bear arms” offers a helpful refresher: Think about it! Current firearm laws regularly force hard-working citizens, responsible parents, concerned business owners to cower, cap in hand, before a tribunal of elected and appointed State agents, begging leave to bolster their security and peace of mind.  These officials, meanwhile, are forever hoisting another hurdle to surmount, concocting one more hoop  to jump through, for Americans concerned about their and their families’ safety.. 

Furthermore, the multiplicity and complexity of these regulatory obstacles effectively neutralize thousands of citizens’ 2A rights. Under the pummeling of bureaucratic dithering, vertiginous paperwork, unjustified delays and daunting fees, the owning of — and ability to use — a firearm becomes, functionally, prohibitive. 

Did you hear about Carol Browne — the Berlin Township, New Jersey woman who, fearing her ex-con ex-boyfriend Michael Eitel, filed both a restraining order against him and an application for a firearms permit? Although the Garden State maintains some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, requests are supposed to be processed within a month. That deadline had passed and Browne was still awaiting her permit in June of 2015 — six weeks after applying for it — when Eitel attacked her in her own driveway, stabbing her to death.

The gun-phobic obsessives, however, can breath a sigh of relief — at least she died without possessing one of those devilish firearms which cause them so much sleeplessness.

One employer/rental-property owner I know, also residing in a northeastern state, applied for a handgun in his town and waited over a year to get the legal go-ahead. Over one year! Fortunately, while paper-pushers dawdled over his case, he didn’t meet the same fate as poor Carol Browne. 

Or take the unconstitutionally intolerable situation in our nation’s capital where, for years, the District has been, to quote Bob Knight again, “stacking the legal deck against gun ownership.” In that city of well over 650,000 residents, only about 1600 semi-automatic handguns had been registered between June 2008 and January 2013; since October 2014, a mere forty-eight permits have been approved. By the way, even if one ultimately snags a rare firearms license, D.C.’s law magnanimously grants  the weapon can never leave the licensee’s domicile; it certainly can’t be carried onto the street. Armed or unarmed, then, law-honoring habitues of Washington, D.C. are essentially rendered sitting ducks for rod-packing hoodlums who’ve no intention of bothering with legal niceties. 

Second Amendment Foundation president Alan M. Gottlieb summarizes: “Cumbersome firearms regulations have never prevented criminals from getting their hands on guns. They have only inconvenienced law-abiding citizens, or deprived them outright from exercising their rights under the Second Amendment.”(emphasis added). Ted Cruz put it even more succinctly at a recent South Carolina town hall, “You don’t stop the bad guys by taking away our guns; you stop the bad guys by using our guns.”

Contrast that situation with a freshly minted court ruling in Puerto Rico — a constitutionally, legally and morally upright ruling — which junked the territory’s firearms registry and licensing requirements altogether. The finding identified the Second Amendment, all by its lonesome, sufficient warrant for open or concealed carry. 

For many, liberty to keep and bear arms plausibly implicates literal life and death concerns. Newsflash: stripping decision-taking about such matters from individuals and depositing it into the hands of box-checking functionaries is an affront to fundamental decency;  just plain wrong by any measurement. Which is why I reject any broadening or intensifying of the 2A-hampering status quo — no matter the “sensibleness” of whatever regulation du jour has captured firearm-haters’ fancy. “Make it a little harder”? I’ll pass — rights-cramping laws are obnoxious enough already, thank you very much. 

Determining whether or not I can be adequately equipped to protect my family? Sorry, legislators, political appointees and law-enforcement authorities — that ain’t your call. The Bill of Rights — and more importantly my heart — settled that question a long time ago. 


Share if you think the moral argument is on the side of the Second Amendment

Steve Pauwels is pastor of Church of the King, Londonderry, NH and host of Striker Radio with Steve Pauwels on the Red State Talk Radio Network. He's also husband to the lovely Maureen and proud father of three fine sons: Mike, Sam and Jake.


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.