Here’s the deal: If you like drinking coffee, and some special interest group suddenly begins howling that coffee is a national health hazard, and it could save taxpayers $100 Billion per year if coffee were outlawed, you sort of have a decision to make:
“Is my passion for coffee worth fighting for? Or do I go with the flow.”
The fact of the matter is that guns are controversial… And if you’ve carried concealed for any amount of time, you already know that it really becomes a defining part of your lifestyle.
That's a nice analogy, in fact I think it accidentally touches on something I often say. Gun owners usually place themselves under the protection of the Constitution or the Bible or the inarguable rationale that they must protect their families from ever-present danger. All those things may be true in the mind of gun owners, debatable as they are, but the real reason is simply because they like guns.
I have yet to hear one pro-gun argument start and finish at the point that they just like guns, they like the lifestyle, the image, the feeling of power, the feeling of safety. Using the example above, if you like something like coffee, you naturally don't want someone telling you you can't have it. From there you might argue about Constitutional rights and other reasons why you want access to the thing desired. But you start and finish with the simple idea that you like it.
It seems to me that mention of this in the article was accidental. Surely the Ammoland people and the USCCA make all the standard arguments for gun rights.
Another interesting thing I noticed in this quote is that the gun control movement is compared to "some special interest group." To me that sounds like a bit of a spin. The gun control movement and the anti gun violence groups are a bit more than that, don't you think?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.