Their arguments and philosophy have become tragically weak, weak unto the death of their movement.
The Gun Control crowd are squarely in this death spiral. People cross over, but it's always from the anti-gun side to the pro-freedom side. But it's not often done with this from-the-heart eloquence:
You, you who hate guns, you gave me nothing.This struck me, for a couple of reasons. First, Older Brother adopted three kids from Russia. That journey wasn't about the years, but about the miles over unpaved roads. Agirlandhergun has driven those same roads. It's doing the Lord's work, and I don't say that lightly.
All that was offered me was a life of fear, of resentment, of bitterness, of dependence...
The gun community has offered me hope and strength, and courage.
They have taught me to have belief in myself.
They have asked nothing of me in return and, yet, I would give them my life.
Funny thing is, they would never ask me to.
Second, her journey to the gun side is in may ways like mine. It is a psychological voyage, of leaving behind an old world view and choosing freedom. I wrote of my own journey down that road, a year ago:
But the meaning goes beyond the (quite modest) firepower of the rifle. It's a statement of freedom, the mark of a citizen, not a subject. We could use more citizens, not more subjects.To agirlandhergun, we need more citizens, like you and me. We ought to have arms, by right as free citizens. Hope and Courage never live precariously, or at discretion.
This is my rifle. There are many like it, but this one is mine. My rifle is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life. My rifle, without me, is useless. Without my rifle, I am useless. I must fire my rifle true. I must shoot straighter than my enemy who is trying to kill me. I must shoot him before he shoots me. I will...This is my rifle. There are none like it, because it marks the transition from a subject to a free man.
No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion.
To everyone else, go read her post which will be the most moving thing you will read all day.