Dave Perry, an editor and writer for the Aurora Sentinel, claimed in an opinion piece on Wednesday that it was over-the-top torture to watch his Twitter feed roll with “sick and creepy touts from gun-goons” during the James Holmes trial yesterday. He also said it was “difficult” to listen to the gut-wrenching testimony from James Holmes victims in the Aurora movie theater shooting.
In Perry’s mind it is more painful to hear opinions that differ from his own, than it is to actually hear testimony from individuals that survived a horrific massacre.
James Holmes is currently on trial for allegedly murdering twelve people and injuring seventy others during a shooting in a movie theater. Holmes is facing 166 charges of murder and other offenses. He has entered a not guilty plea by reason of insanity.
If the accusations are true Holmes is one sick individual, but in Perry’s opinion his crimes could have been reduced or even prevented if only stricter gun control measures were in place at the time of the shooting.
I’ll admit that I probably should have stopped reading Perry’s article the moment he claimed Twitter exchanges made him more upset than hearing the horror stories from Holmes’ victims, but I was interested in hearing why the opinions of those in our society that favor gun rights made him so distraught.
In the article Perry goes after two “far-far-far-right” groups who he claims will go to battle with anyone who dare to “squint at the Second Amendment.” The groups he targets are the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners and the Independence Institute of Golden Colorado.
Perry’s pro-gun control rant is directed at the two groups and anyone who doesn’t agree with him that more gun regulations would make everyone safer. Let’s review some of the illogical arguments Perry puts forward in his opinion piece for the Aurora Sentinel.
It’s sick. Watch the Aurora theater shooting trial testimony and tell me that letting crazies like James Holmes have easy access to mail-order arsenals and endless ammo is a good idea. Tell me again how Holmes could have unleashed this kind of terror with a switch blade or a chain saw.
Ah,the old knife or chain saw argument. I’ll admit that it would be impossible for James Holmes to inflict the same amount of damage with a switch blade or a chain saw. However, who’s to say he wouldn’t have acquired a gun illegally or raided the theater slinging homemade explosives if he was unable to acquire firearms and ammunition legally? After all, Holmes had his apartment rigged with explosives in such a sophisticated manner that cops were prepared to let the building burn down. The only reason cops were able to salvage the building is because Holmes provided authorities with instructions to defuse the complex system of explosives he had set-up throughout his apartment.
The apartment was packed with thirty homemade grenades, ten gallons of gasoline, improvised explosive devices (IED’s), trip wires, and trigger mechanisms. If you want to believe Mr. Perry’s logic, then apparently gun regulations would have stopped Holmes from building all of these homemade explosives.
Perry goes on to liken advocates for gun rights to those who favor relaxed regulations on cars, toxins and marijuana.
…Nobody I know of has ever asked for the government to collect everything with a trigger. All level-headed people have been asking for is common sense. We can have guns and regulations just like we can have cars, toxins and marijuana, all with regulations…
There is nothing morally wrong with a community or group of businesses in a town agreeing to follow certain regulations pertaining to guns or anything else people decide to regulate. As long as property owners’ participation is consensual and agreement to follow the regulations is not the result of coercive tactics, then there is nothing wrong with regulations per se.
Today, the issue with regulations is that they are not drafted with the consent of property owners. Currently, most regulations are enforced by a coercive government and failure to comply can result in fines or even jail time. In a more free society regulations for things such as guns and marijuana could be addressed at the local and community level if desired.
Gun rights advocates (this author included) often defend gun rights by using a utilitarian defense. This defense ultimately claims that because guns can be utilized to defend life, then there will be less crime as a result of more relaxed gun laws. While some of the crime we see today could be prevented or deterred with less strict gun laws, there is no possible way to stop all violence. Violence will always exist, because violent people exist.
This is why it is important to argue the right to bear arms from a moral perspective as well. Arguments that only consider the perspective of a gun’s utility to an individual are missing the larger picture. Ultimately, firearm rights are rooted in the natural right to defend life. Each individual has a right to their own life and liberty. The right to defend this life is a natural right. If a government interferes with an individual’s ability to defend their life, this is a violation of the individual’s rights. The right to bear arms is not granted by government, rather the right to defend life should be protected with the help of government. The Second Amendment does not grant individuals the right to defend their life; it serves to protect an individual’s ability to protect their life.
Check out previous editions of Second Amendment Watch!
Check out our YouTube Channel!
Receive access to ALL of our EXCLUSIVE bonus audio content – including “Conspiracy Corner”, “Degenerate Gamblers” and the “League of Liberty Podcast” by joining the Lions of Liberty Pride and supporting us on Patreon!