Become a Member Here
About Missouri Firearms Coalition
Let me play devil’s advocate, for a minute, by pointing out my concerns about the statement: “law abiding gun owners” made on the above “about” page: (FWIW every gun group , and owner, almost without exception, accepts this anti liberty “group-think” slogan , so I am not picking on MGC in particular.)
This is the text that I have a concern with:
1.) “While professed pro-gun legislators have a majority in both chambers, Missouri lags behind many other states in protecting the rights of law abiding gun owners.”
Why do people that claim to be educated in the concept of liberty, assert that if someone is not “law abiding” (such as maybe being a christian in some countries) that somehow your right to self defense disappears? Do any of these people think before they type? Doesn’t this imply that law breaking gun owners have no rights? (It’s foundational in Western law that everyone has rights, all of the time. Even “lawbreakers”)
If these group thinkers carry their logic forward they would also use terms like “law abiding parents”, where they believe that if a parent breaks a law, that they would forever lose their right to be a parent or to conceive children. Aren’t they saying the exact same nutty thing about gun owners? I guess a law breaking food shopper would perhaps be banned by law for life from entering a grocery stores. Think outside of your normalcy bias and group think and you will clearly see how nutty all of these assertions are to anyone that believes in inalienable rights.
: a pattern of thought characterized by self-deception, forced manufacture of consent, and conformity to group values and ethics
Let’s continue, if a gun owner is not law abiding, to the extent that he is incarcerated, his weapons, are kept from him, by the fact that he can’t bring them into the prison. However the day this person gets out, even if a convicted 1st degree murder, he get’s access to his guns back that very same day. At least that is the way this country worked, and was supposed to work, until the US Congress, instituted the Nazi gun Control Act in the US and renamed it the “1968 Gun Control Act”. Americans up to that point understood that the right can ever be taken away (or regulated for that matter) as that is the very definition of a right. Close to 100 years of government monopoly schooling has produced individuals that have no clue as to what their rights are, or the proper function of government, according to the founders and our founding documents. That is how over the top, disgusting slave-speak like: “law abiding gun owners” get into the lexicon. Isn’t this an oxymoron of the highest level? What does following the law have to do with a right, since a legitimate law can not take a right away)
2.) “In 2015 year alone, numerous states signed Constitutional Carry into law and made progress in advancing Stand-Your-Ground law – yet both of these bills died again this year in Jefferson City.”
“Laws” do not give us our rights. The second amendment recognizes the fact that we had and still have a pre existing right of self defense. We need no “laws” to tell us this. Further “Laws” can do nothing but restrict this right. People that speak and act like this, are again very clearly illustrating that they do not even understand the basic concept of a right. This is scary, when the more educated of us, are still missing the philosophical elephants in the room.
The solution IMHO, the only real one that will get us off of the hamster wheel of trying to enact legislation is to educate the public as to what their rights are. Passing legislation is nothing more than licking your masters boot, for a few permissions, as government can not grant rights.
Think about it, and I welcome your comments below.
Lastly please contact this group with your thoughts, and if their answers convince you that they are philosophically on firm ground, then buy a membership, and support them.
While I despise the machiavellian compromises, that they are making, perhaps it is necessary, but that does not mean that we should not have a less myopic, longer term goal and methodology planned out.(Like educating the public about their rights perhaps)
I plan on purchasing a membership, even if we may have a difference of opinion. These are not the times for a house divided. Not at all, and after all they are keeping the wolf from the door for the time being, as expedient as the method may be.