It is at times interesting noting parallels of liberals discussing abortion and marriage laws, and conservatives discussing gun laws. The recent example here is Michaelangelo Signorile, Editor-at-large for Huffington Post’s Gay Voices section, and his article “Has the Anti-Gay Right Found Its Gay ‘Partial-Birth Abortion’?”
In the article, Signorile talks about how the pro-life right will not stop trying to chip away at abortion in the United States simply because of Roe v. Wade, and how that will become a model for what would happen should the Supreme Court of the United States issue a blanket decision overturning all gay marriage bans in the United States. Basically, they will be a bit more sneaky about it, using the cryptology of legalese to mask what they intend.
Yet if you look at the observations Signorile makes in his article, I cannot help but notice the parallels with what the left is trying to do with firearms rights in the United States. This paragraph in particular is key:
On abortion, they chipped away slowly at women’s freedom of choice, making abortion difficult to obtain and passing laws to restrict women’s rights even if some were and are later overturned. Some laws would stick, helping to limit abortion (often affecting poor women). And even when they ultimately lose, the right temporarily shuts down clinics or restricts access, creating a constant state of instability and keeping its agenda — and the often hateful rhetoric — in the national spotlight.
Let’s massage this paragraph a little bit:
On firearms, they chipped away slowly at gun rights, making firearms difficult to obtain and passing laws that restrict gun rights even if some were and are later overturned. Some laws would stick, helping to restrict guns (often affecting the poor). And even when they ultimately lose, the left temporarily cuts off or restricts access, creating a constant state of instability and keeping its agenda — and the often hateful rhetoric — in the national spotlight.
Doesn’t that summarize the gun control — excuse me, “gun safety” agenda in a heartbeat? Here’s another observation:
Test something out, see what works, and move on to something else if it doesn’t work.
Again, this is exactly what the left is trying to do with regard to firearms. The left will talk about needing to restrict guns to save lives, and the right will talk about needing to restrict abortion to save the unborn. And the sad thing is both sides are so clouded by their own ideologies they won’t see the hypocrisy, even when blatantly pointed out to them.
Even Signorile’s observation about how the gay rights movement has become somewhat complacent due to a lot of victories in recent years also applies to the gun rights advocates — or at least how we were ahead of Sandy Hook and Aurora:
It’s perplexing, but this seems to be part of a cocky strategy to act like winners and not give credence or attention to the haters. But when a state successfully passes an abhorrent, dangerous bill like the one in Arkansas, the only response is a loud, public condemnation, and demands that all your allies, including your business and political allies, speak out and condemn it. No matter if you lose, you must always show the opposition you will put up a nasty fight.
Again, let’s massage the language:
But when a state successfully passes an abhorrent, dangerous bill like the one in [Colorado, or other gun control state], the only response is a loud, public condemnation, and demands that your allies, including your business and political allies, speak out and condemn it. No matter if you lose, you must always show the opposition you will put up a nasty fight.
I don’t know Signorile’s stance on guns, but it wouldn’t surprise me at all if he were in favor of severe restrictions and bans on firearms. Yet even if I were to show him my observations herein, I wouldn’t change his mind in the least if that were the case, and he’d probably use predictable arguments to back up his assertions.
