Regular – or, hell, even irregular – readers of this weblog are probably more than familiar with my rebranding of "gun control" supporters as "anti-rights cultists" but go ahead and slide back there to re-read that particular post to get everyone back on the same page.
All good? Great.
So, really, that was just an exercise in me stretching the definitions of a few words in order to cast my opponents in a negative, socially unacceptable light, right? Wrong. I meant every word of what I said almost a year ago now, and I contend they are even more poignant today than they were in the past; here are a few reasons why, courtesy of my fellow pro-rights activists.
He believes (or claims to) that somehow a law against possessing a gun in national parks would have stopped someone on the run from the police after shooting multiple people from bringing his gun into the park, so that it would have been impossible for him to shoot the ranger. And he expects other people to believe this irrational assertion, too.
The anti’s truly believe that, had guns not been allowed in National Parks, the shooting in Mt. Rainier would not have happened. You see, crazy people do not care about taking human lives nor are they concerned with any punishment for their actions, unless of course that punishment revolves around getting busted for carrying a gun. Then they’re all like “Whoa! The death penalty for murder I can deal with, but 5 extra years for carrying a gun across an imaginary line? I can’t live with that on my conscious!”
So what CSGV says is that a mentally unstable person who already committed murder was actually going to respect a law forbidding the possession of firearms in a National Park if it wasn’t for the NRA convincing both Congress and president Obama to rescind the prohibition.
Because if a CRIMINAL knows that there is a LAW that stops them from crossing state lines while they have a gun in their waist band they will stop, turn in their firearm to the nearest police officer and stop their life of crime, and join a local non-profit that’s whole mission in life is not to help people but to strip them of their rights because they believe that an inanimate object is what causes people to commit crimes not the person themselves.
If you honestly believe that a "gun free zone" will actually keep out a criminal intent on murdering someone with a firearm, or will cause him to somehow surrender his firearms before he commits that crime, or if you honestly believe that one state not honoring a criminal’s carry permit (if he has one at all) will stop him from entering that state, you are thinking no more rationally than the sign-wielding fool below:
You are allowing yourself to be deluded by the belief that a sign and an arbitrary, invisible line will somehow cause a violent, sociopathic, probably psychopathic, murderer to somehow rethink his methods and his motivations and adapt them according to your desires. That is not sane. That is not logical. That is pretty much the very embodiment of "blind faith", especially since there is precisely no evidence to support it.
And as such, it is, by definition, an "unconventional belief" – after all, convention indicates that if something works, are some sort of indications that it does, in fact, work. Sure, we may not understand the precise mechanics of why it works, but at least we know it functions. This cannot be said of "gun control" as a whole, and it surely cannot be said of "gun free zones". Furthermore, per the definition established by the Supreme Court in D.C. v. Heller, "gun control", and specifically the banning of firearms in specific locations, is an "unconventional" belief, in that the Second Amendment explicitly protects and preserves the individual right of all law-abiding, of-age Americans to own firearms "in common use for lawful purposes", such as handguns, shotguns, semi-automatic magazine-fed rifles (aka "assault weapons"), and so forth.
As I said, "gun control" supporters are operating off blind faith that verges on religious zealotry – not only do they know they are right (despite the absence of any evidence whatsoever demonstrating their right-ness), but you should have to live according to their beliefs, damnit*! In any case, couple that single-minded fervor with charismatic (in their own minds) leaders who are capable of riling up their followers into a (supposedly) righteous, frothing-at-the-mouth rage, and, hey, look, a cult.
Speaking personally, I prefer to have my world view shaped by facts, rational thought, logic, and actual hard evidence, rather than the deranged rantings-and-ravings of charlatans whose continued employment literally relies on more people being shot and killed by firearms. But maybe that is what sets me apart from anti-rights cultists…
(* – When I phrase it like that, maybe "cult" is too gentle of a word… perhaps "inquisition"?)