Your Opinion: Why the silence from gun-rights advocates?
Sunday, December 1, 2013
Mr. Beatty’s Oct. 3 submission proposed that the resolution of our domestic dilemma lies in the abdication of civilian government to a military junta. On Oct. 20 Beatty cloaked the same proposition and suggested a military plan to “control civil disorder that might result from economic, natural and nuclear disasters.” More telling, he continues, “The alternative is anarchy which would be preferable to the Montana Militia or an urban street gang.”
Absent any commentary by the self-identified passionate proponents opposed to any legislation or government action diminishing the perceived absolute right guaranteed in the Second Amendment, I am confused. In the seven weeks since Beatty’s first submission, the
Second Amendment activist core has been conspicuously and tellingly silent. There has been no statement of unmitigated opposition, no marginal reservation, not a peep, not the slightest indication of concern. How can this be? Two credible explanations exist.
First, those who would normally howl at any threat to the Second Amendment rights of “law-abiding citizens” do not understand either the impact of a military junta or of a statement that clearly expresses a threat to gun ownership for those members of a “Montana Militia.”
Critically, Beatty does not discriminate between “Military Militias” and “urban street gangs.”
The second alternative must be that this “military plan” by any measure either as a junta or as a tool for crisis management is being subliminally ignored because such would detract the ability of Second Amendment devotees from directing their primary wrath at Democrats and President Obama. Regardless the simple truth is that the tactical first step of any such military control would be the discovery of where the guns are, who has them and subsequent confiscation to ensure public peace and tranquility.
So why does one proposal that would substantially restrict private gun ownership inspire no outrage when such a simple proposal as universal background checks inspire the apocalyptic public voices echoed in these pages.
My only explanation can be NRA devotees submitting to these pages are insincere in their Second Amendment passion. In other words, their venom and antagonism is political not authentically policy-based. That distinction discredits their plausibility and the validity of their policy position. Consistency should have required the same outrage to be expressed after either or both of Beatty’s submissions. It did not happen so the outrage must be only a function of bias.