A "Constitutional solution to guns" in search of a problem

Editor's Note: The Following op-ed was submitted to the Cincinnati Enquirer in response to yet another anti-Second Amendment op-ed published recently by that newspaper, entitled "Constitutional solution to guns." The editors didn't give Valentino the courtesy of a reply.

Despite self-identifying as a “retired writer,” which implies a level of professionalism, Rick Ellison’s recent editorial titled “Constitutional Solution to Guns,” was disjointed attack on gun rights that used emotional blackmail instead of fact-based arguments. He also tried to trick people with anecdotal statistics that can be refuted in seconds by a five year-old using Google. As a last gasp, he dug-up the laughable “macho” gun owner stereotype and exploited the anguish parents of murdered children suffer in a desperate attempt to sway people to believe in the false hope of gun control.

Mr. Elision’s opening argument was the absurd claim that modern ammunition couldn’t possibly be protected by the Second Amendment. An idea that is a poorly hidden attempt to revive the discredited idea that our Founding Fathers never intended for people to own, use and carry modern high capacity firearms. Trying to re-purpose the same failed claim by substituting modern ammunition, for modern firearms, fails to overcome the flaws inherent in this line of thinking – it also isn’t fooling anyone.

The flaws in this line of thinking are obvious, because if people accept Mr. Ellison’s claim that the Founders never intended the Second Amendment to protect ownership, and use, of modern semi-automatic rifles or ammunition, they also have to accept that the Founders couldn’t conceive of a time when speech can be sent around the world to millions of people in real time. This would leave only one possible conclusion – that using a computer and the Internet to disseminate a written article is not protected under the First Amendment right to free speech.

Before anyone tries to claim guns are more dangerous than speech, consider the success ISIS has in recruiting via the Internet.

Regardless, the notion that using a computer or the Internet voids First Amendment rights is ridiculous, and is quickly discounted by the majority of free-thinking Americans. The same holds true for modern ammunition and firearms in regard to Second Amendment protections.

Mr. Ellison’s line of thinking does illustrate another anti-gun tactic that isn’t explicitly mentioned in his article, but is crystal clear nonetheless.

When the establishment media allows the premise that only the Second Amendment needs to be strictly regulated to go unchecked, they let anti-gun zealots send the message that it is somehow out of place among the other rights affirmed in the Bill of Rights. If you don’t agree, try convincing a reporter, journalist, or lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union that the First Amendment rights need to be limited in the same way they want to regulate Second Amendment rights.

Then simply sit back and enjoy the show as they foam at the mouth, start twitching and go apoplectic.

That brings us to Mr. Ellison’s final and nearly indecipherable argument for banning modern ammunition. Something he called “the macho factor,” a crazed raving about “real men” letting the government turn their favorite toy into a Whiffle bat, and a vile attempt to exploit the parents of children murdered during the Sandy Hook tragedy.

Admittedly, it took substantial effort to determine exactly what Mr. Ellison was talking about. In the end, we can only surmise his use of the word “macho,” and the phrase “real men” was an attempt to make the discredited point that all gun owners are frustrated men trying to compensate for a specific physical inadequacy. Twenty years ago, the anti-gun playbook called for trying to portray all gun owners as unenlightened anti-government Rambo wanna-bes.

But, the huge number of women who are carrying concealed handguns has long since relegated such a laughable stereotype to history’s dust bin. The only person who seems to be in the dark is “retired writer” Rick Ellison. Unless of course, he thinks concealed carry purses and women-only tactical handgun classes are somehow are being marketed to macho men.

While most of the anti-gun arguments trotted out in Mr. Ellison’s column are easily-dismissed anti-gun clichés, his choice to exploit the Sandy Hook parents in a game of emotional blackmail is beneath contempt. Only a firm belief that the end justifies the means can allow someone to forget basic human decency by using the mental image of someone’s dead child to push their own political viewpoint.

In this case, however, that wasn’t enough. Rick Ellison went one step further by claiming parents of Sandy Hook victims are somehow awarded moral superiority on all gun issues. One fact that anti-gun zealots forget in these situations are the Sandy Hook parents who spoke out in favor of arming teachers, or other school staff.

In the end, the column “Constitutional Solution to Guns” was another poorly researched anti-gun screed that failed to make a rational case for banning modern guns or ammunition. But, more importantly, like most anti-gun zealots, Mr. Ellison failed on a human level by using the image of murdered children in his vile attempt at emotional blackmail.

Gerard Valentino is a member of the Buckeye Firearms Foundation board of directors and a former military intelligence professional. His writing credits include Townhall.com, World Net Daily, Human Events Online, and CNSNews.com.