<$BlogRSDUrl$>                                                                                                                                                                   
The Third Estate
What Is The Third Estate?
 Everything
What Has It Been Until Now In The Political Order?
Nothing
What Does It Want To Be?
Something

Dear NRA Member

Monday, January 09, 2006
For years now you have had a strong loyalty to the Republican party. You have explained a number of reasons why conservatives are more in line with your thinking than liberals: that liberals want to take your guns away, that we are out of sympathy with rural life, that Democrats are the party of big government, and as such are a threat to individual freedoms, among which you number the ownership of firearms.

Democrats have over the last generation been the party of gun control, and as such it is certainly reasonable for you to oppose them. But the Democratic party is changing. Many liberals like myself, after re-evaluating the matter, have decided that gun control is better left to states and local communities. There are many, many pro-gun Democrats - our party Chairman has a perfect NRA rating, for example. The evolving liberal position is that if one wants live in a community with guns, they should be allowed to. All we ask is that you give us the right NOT to live in a community with guns.

There is some truth to the claim that liberals have ignored rural areas. But I think that is changing. Environmentalists have brokered local alliances with hunters in order to preserve natural beauty for all of us to enjoy, and the resistance to big box retailers and suburban sprawl is in part a desire to preserve a valuable way of life - the small town. In this I believe we could be allies, not foes.

Now you might claim that gun ownership is an absolute right guaranteed by the Constitution. I will not quibble with you about the meaning of the 2nd amendment. For the sake of argument I will concede the point. But surely you do not really mean that gun rights are absolute. We do not let convicted felons, or children, or the insane own guns. We do not let you carry guns into banks. No right is absolute - they must be considered in light of other rights as well. We do not ask that you give up your guns, only that you do not bring them into our homes.

Many of you express a desire to keep guns on your person in order that you can defend yourself, that you may feel safe. I could quote the decline in crime statistics, or the fact that most gun deaths are from domestic disputes. But instead I would like to point out that for some people, a city full of guns makes them feel extremely unsafe. You do not wish to live in fear, but neither do they.

Finally, you have stated that limits on gun ownership are the first step to tyranny. You believe that as long as you have your guns, you are safe from the intrusive hand of government. I might ask what good your pistol would be against a tank, but the success of the Iraq insurgency would put the lie to that statement - an armed citizenry is in fact a major check on an unwanted government.

But assuming that you accept my compromise - that we have some communities with guns and others without, based on the free decision of the citizenry - then what have you to fear? I ask you, what party is truly a danger to liberty? Which party has freely engaged in wiretapping of American citizens, of torture, or secret prosecutions? Which party has muzzled dissent and suborned journalists? Which party is enamored of executive power, a power which they believe has no real limits? Which party is happy to have businesses lay claim to every scrap of personal information you possess?

You say you want to support the party of freedom. I ask you to think carefully about which party that is.
Posted by Arbitrista @ 8:12 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home

:: permalink