All opinion articles are the opinion of the author and not necessarily of American Military News. If you are interested in submitting an op-ed please email [email protected]
Latest posts by Dan Wos (see all)
- Op-Ed: Why Beliefs Vs. Knowledge Makes All The Difference When It Comes To Gun Ideology - April 5, 2017
- Op-Ed: It’s Not a Privilege. It’s My Right. - March 14, 2017
- Op-Ed: Anti-Gunners Perceive Guns Through A Lens Of Murder - February 6, 2017
By continuing to allowAnti-2nd Amendment Radicals to run wild with their fear-campaigns, we in turn are contributing to the demonization of guns and gun owners. The narrative that the anti-gun radicals promote is shaped in a way that causes people to believe that if guns weren’t available, the killer would have not been capable of killing.
A popular argument used by anti-gunners to convince people that the gun is the culprit and the killer is an innocent player, is the “toddler and the gun” argument. The number of times in America that a toddler gets ahold of a gun and causes injury is minuscule compared to the lists of other ways children are put in danger that are rarely discussed. However, that doesn’t stop the Anti-2nd Amendment Radicals from using the scenario. It is a very powerful tool because it tugs at the heartstrings of people.
Who doesn’t want to protect little babies?
In their argument, you would be some kind of monster if you didn’t support a complete gun-ban if it could save even just one child. This emotional ploy grabs people and forces them to listen and comply, regardless of the fact that the whole scenario is based on a very tiny number of incidents. The other reason the “toddler and the gun” scenario is so effective is that it takes the focus off the person and fully places it on the gun. We all would agree that a baby is not responsible for his or her actions so it encourages the thought process that “it’s all the fault of the gun.”
By getting people to embrace this scenario, it takes them to a deeply emotional place while simultaneously locking in the belief that it is the gun that caused the damage. Once that belief is anchored, the average person is more likely to accept the notion that it’s always the gun’s fault. The Anti-Gun Radical can now easily guide people to believe guns cause violence and those people become better candidates to support gun-legislation.
On October 19, 2016, during her final debate with Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton said the following with respect to this topic and referring to the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller case:
“What the District of Columbia was trying to do was to protect toddlers from guns and so they wanted people with guns to safely store them. And the court didn’t accept that reasonable regulation.”
This statement by Clinton was very strategic in its wording and implications. Many would argue that the District of Columbia was not necessarily trying to protect toddlers in this landmark case, but rather disable gun owners in their own homes. Hillary Clinton’s exploitation of toddlers in this statement was an attempt to position the District of Columbia as the “Champion for Babies” while setting up anyone who disagrees as a “Demon-Baby-Hater.” This was a landmark case and it ended in a victory for Heller and gun owners across the country. The results of this case un-shackled gun owners and allowed them to have firearms at-the-ready and own handguns for the purpose of self-defense. Hillary Clinton used this case and redirected the narrative to further influence people by using the “toddler and the gun” scenario in her debate with Donald Trump.
Clinton also went on to degrade the court for its decision by saying they didn’t accept the “reasonable regulation” that would require people to “safely” store their guns. Clinton’s opinion of “safely storing” would render firearms completely useless in a time of need by having them unloaded and either locked up, disassembled or disabled. In other words: rendering them useless.
It’s no secret that anti-gun politicians would love to see guns in America completely unusable and they do everything they can to achieve that. The tricky part is getting past their use of manipulating word tactics. Most logical thinking people would agree that making guns completely useless when they are needed most would not fall under the category of “reasonable regulations.” The complete disarming of people in their own home is one of the things the District of Columbia was trying to achieve and Hillary Clinton seems to find that “reasonable.”
For a more in-depth look at this and other topics, pick up a copy of my book Good Gun Bad Guy.
Stick to your guns,
Dan Wos is an American entrepreneur, author, musician and NRA member. He is the author of ‘Good Gun Bad Guy – Behind the Lies of the Anti-Gun Radical’ The book reveals the corruption and deceit that comes from the anti-gun lobby as it attempts to vilify law-abiding, gun-owning Americans.