When it comes to gun control, the issue has been intentionally misframed by the left. Not surprising, since the left misframes gun control in every country it touches. When we see the anti-gun activist articles, speeches, press releases and interviews, they seem to consistently talk about gun violence. Every day, I scan the news items and I see the same old cliches: ‘gun violence'.
One of the things we'll grapple with as the November elections draw near is how the issues are framed. Will they be accurate or meaningless? Is there such a thing as a gun violence and no knife violence or rape violence or beatings or abduction violence?
You'd better believe that 90 million gun owners are not only against violence, but also against so-called gun violence. For 90 million gun owners, gun violence – the idea of having to shoot – is the very last resort. We dislike the idea of robbery, rape, mayhem and murder so much that we are willing to bring lethal force to bear on the situation. We choose to have that force at hand and battery ready. We have the legal authority to do it (anyone has all legal authority to stop a crime in progress, including their own murder) and we have resolved one thing: it is better to bring lethal force to bear on an aggressor than to permit lethal force on an innocent, namely yourself.
90 million Americans have likely thought this through, and have concluded – they have resolved – that it is better to live with stopping a crime than to live with the scarring of a crime you did not try to stop, and that includes not only yourself, but loved ones. Sometimes, on behalf of the life of a stranger.
As one Chief Of Police put it once, stopping a robbery doesn't mean you believe that possessions are worth killing for, it's up to the robber to weigh whether committing a robbery is worth dying for.
The perspective of self defense and by extension the defense of a community, thereby, has been warped by the anti-gun movement into a way of thinking which says that self-defense is murder, excessive, and contributes to violence. Gun owners have strived to educate their friends, neighbors and communities that robberies and mayhems aren't about killing the aggressor, but of protecting the life of the innocent. Laws are in place to determine whether what force was necessary, and this is a useful safeguard. Meanwhile, gun owners understand one thing: in time of resisting grave danger, there is no one else to do it.
If you believe in the authority of police, then you must believe in the authority of the very people who gave police their authority to summon up when in the absence of police. Hiding this is part of the warping of gun control's misframing the issues. Self-defense is not only a right, it is within one’s legal authority, and it is this which the anti-gun activists seem to sort of leave out when they pressure companies to do as gun control insists.
Some won’t.
Starbucks has taken a very brave position on their customer's wearing sidearms in their coffee houses. The Brady Campaign has obnoxiously tried to pressure Starbucks into kicking second amendment customers out of its outlets. Starbucks took the position that it will respect the state and local laws, which, for many of its outlets, are in right-to-carry states, and that means armed citizens are within the law. It's a very patriotic move which affirms the dignity and safety and sovereignty of everyone who might visit a Starbucks. In a time when corporations are playing left-sided politics, Starbucks takes up the patriotic position in support of the United States, not against it. It's getting a lot of attention with some keen observations from second amendment writers who point out the benefits of Independence safe from the foibles of public servants and non-profits who second guess the second amendment.
I'd be willing to bet that 90 million gun owners don't like "gun violence" any more than anyone else. So-called ‘gun violence’ is usually criminal aggression. The silly part about misframing the issue is that I bet that 330 million Americans don't like knife violence either, nor the silent violence of abduction, or the violence of rape or robbery. When that criminal aggression is discouraged by the thug's realization that he could be stopped rather quickly, then you see the second amendment at work. Subtle, but safer. Safer streets. Safer streets independent of silly public officials is the second amendment at work.
With all the talk of Corporate Citizenship, I applaud the corporate citizenship of Starbucks. Where Corporate Social Responsibility was born as a leftist concept of coercion and control around the globe, Starbucks is showing that there is such a thing as Patriotic CSR that can thrive independent of coercion. And in America, Independence is what we live for.
At this hour, there are conflicting reports coming from Starbucks search terms and stories that individual stores are
refusing armed customers in right-to-carry states, but this remains to be sorted out. Corporate has issued a release that it abides by state and local laws as I mentioned, and we may be seeing individuals at some outlets who are going not only against state law, but also Corporate. The story would be worth following. If Starbucks really does support state law, they deserve praise. Gun control does not support law, it seems, and pressuring others is what gun control lives for.
Still, this is huge, and if Brady hadn't opened its fat face, it might not have become an issue with the potential of becoming a highlight of the 2010 election. We might see a lot more of it before November, 2010.
