Heres's the story. The cops went out to confiscate the guns of a domestic abuser. The guy had his parents' address on his driver's license. The police went to that address and took all the guns away. It turned out the young violent man hadn't been living there and the guns seized were the property of his family members.
But, get a load of the way the lawyer describes it.
"The plaintiffs were deprived their constitutional right to keep and bear arms in protection of themselves and their families," the lawsuit alleges. "For the entire period of deprivation, the plaintiffs were unable to engage in the fundamental, natural and constitutional right to defend themselves."Now, really, isn't that the biggest line of crap you've ever heard? I could accept it if he'd added "with guns" at the end. It might also be pointed out that no home invasions or zombie attacks took place during that entire 10-week period. So the phrase "were unable" is a bit misleading.
More honest would be "WOULD HAVE BEEN unable to defend themselves WITH GUNS if an incident HAD OCCURRED.
Why do the gun-rights folks have to exaggerate and lie so much? What we're doing on the gun control side is relating the facts of avoidable gun violence. Kid Shootings for example, relates one incident after another, no embellishment, no twisting, just facts. Ohh Shoot is another one, just simple reports. Even on our own blog, we report stories like this one, I admit to a little fleshing out from time to time, but the stories speak for themselves.
What's your opinion? Are the gun-rights activists a bit more creative in their arguing style than we are? And if so, why do you think that is?
Please leave a comment.
