America's free thinkers: Gun ban extremists or gun rights advocates?

By Gerard Valentino

It's almost understandable why members of the media end up as apologists for the immoral agenda to ban guns. They see the after-effects of violence perpetrated with guns more than just about any other demographic group in America. Still, they are supposed to act as professionals and use sound logic in determining if guns are the problem, or if gun violence is simply a symptom of other societal break-downs.

Gun advocates point out that when the government began to legislate away the right to self-defense, the crime rate began to sky-rocket. Criminals, being good at their craft, knew that once the populace is disarmed the pickings got much easier. Claiming that banning guns only leaves unarmed victims, however, is a stale refrain – but that doesn’t make it less truthful.

Instead, the simplest and oldest arguments for letting the law-abiding go through life armed are classics for a reason. Classics never get old, and remain fresh and relevant no matter how much time passes. In stark contrast to the banalities of the anti-gun agenda, the pro-gun stance remains as vibrant today as when the Founding Fathers put it on paper over 200 years ago.

The voice of Martin Luther King, the wisdom of Benjamin Franklin and the unwavering leadership of General George Patton are all proof that the work of genius does not fade away. Instead, such work remains profound despite an ever-evolving society. America has changed in ways someone like Franklin could never fathom, yet his profound statement that people who give up freedom for security deserve neither is as relevant in our post-9/11 world as when he uttered it all those years ago.

Each successive generation learned to heed Franklin's advice, except for those who believe in the false hope of banning guns. They not only refuse to acknowledge the sheer brilliance of Franklin’s words, but also do everything possible to discredit that part of his legacy. In their mind, Franklin's words of wisdom and the belief that America will finally be safe only when everyone gives up their guns are mutually exclusive.

Experiments in other countries have proven that as gun laws become more restrictive crime rates and rates of genocide increase at a frightening pace.

The proof is irrefutable, and like Franklin's brilliant foresight, the statement that Stalin disarmed the populace in preparation for killing millions isn’t less true because it is repeated over and over again by pro-gun forces in America. Reminding the establishment media how wrong they are on the gun issue also never becomes irrelevant - because it is undeniably true.

Few long running disputes in history are as one-sided as the debate over whether letting free people protect their life is better than relying on the nanny state for security. Franklin's disgust over such behavior was evident when he uttered his now famous saying; it is also just as true today in modern America because genocide can happen here.

It is unlikely, but possible. Only the Second Amendment to the Constitution ultimately protects the right to vote, the right to free speech, the right to practice religion as each individual sees fit, and the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The right to bear arms as spelled out in the Second Amendment is unquestionably the best protection human beings have come up with to dissuade tyranny, genocide and the abuse of government.

The pursuit of liberty as practiced in the American experiment through a modern Republic proved to be wildly successful, not because of the immoral agenda designed to take away freedom, but because of the moral agenda that allows people to protect their freedom through the private ownership of firearms.

In this case, sounding like a broken record when laying out the righteousness of the pro-gun argument puts pro-gun advocates in the same company as the most brilliant free thinkers in history. People like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and George Washington, among others. Although it wasn’t just the American Founders who put forth freedom as the solution to the human condition, even brilliant philosophers like Aristotle, Socrates and Jesus all preached about the value of being free.

The reverse is not true, since the philosophy used by the gun grabbers came from the exact opposite of the free thinking that created America. The anti-gun agenda is based on the type of socialism that created the Soviet Union, and destroys free choice by taking away liberty.

That isn't overblown hyperbole. Man's inhumanity to another doesn't exist because of violence or guns - it exists because people use strength to steal another's liberty.

The most inhumane act a person can take is to steal another's dignity, or to steal someone's freedom of thought, freedom of how to worship, or freedom to live as one sees fit. Keeping a person caged isn't in and of itself a destruction of their humanity, but caging their individual spirit is, and taking away their ability to pursue liberty is, without a doubt, what causes irrevocable damage to the soul.

Our Founders understanding of liberty was the springboard that launched the most successful revolution in human history. So, as we study how to save the experiment created by the most spectacular of all human endeavors – free thought, which, despite what the left in American believes can only be taken away by a force as powerful and insidious as government.

Gun-grabbers exist in a world where the power of government is absolute, and therefore they live in a terrifying and overwhelmingly destructive world. A place where human kind is held hostage to its own ugliness and a place where the anti-gun cowards in society exist only to destroy, not build.

By taking the low road, the gun grabbers among us purposely dodge the real debate over which side of the equation pushes an agenda tied to freedom. Sure, the anti-gunners claim they are for the freedom to go around in public without having to worry that the nut case standing next to them is going to snap and start shooting people.

Even the above example shows how the anti-gun movement is based on fear and loathing of freedom.

Pro-gunners point out that through carrying a firearm they are free to fight back, flee or simply become a good witness. Which is the true definition of free choice. In contrast, if you believe nobody should carry a gun (which really means you think only criminals should be armed) your actions are defined by what you can't do – or more specifically, by what you can have done to you.

Your choices are to become a victim, flee and hope you can outrun a bullet, or stand there and die. Ultimately, those aren't legitimate choices, but that is all you get from so-called enlightened anti-gun schemers.

Gerard Valentino writes for the ValentinoChronicle.com and is the Buckeye Firearms Foundation Treasurer.