Some people are saying the Curry Todd (Who has now stepped down as the chair of the house state and local committee) drunk driving arrest was a blow to gun rights legislation because there was gun was in a holster down between the seats in the car at the time.
Some of our senior members are saying "We need to pull back on the second amendment stuff for the sake of our new members". The funny thing is, its not the new members who are saying pull back at all. In fact, they are ready to charge forward and push the attack.
If Todd's failure is a call to move backwards, then I guess it was also a blow against laws that might liberalize alcohol sales as well. Is it a blow against selling alcohol in super markets? Should that issue no longer come up? Should we stop the debate on that?
Is it a blow against allowing alcohol sales in counties that were formerly dry? Should that issue no longer come up? Should we stop the debate on that?
Is it a blow against allowing alcohol sales at premier resorts? Should that issue no longer come up? Should we stop the debate on that?
Should we start to look at restricting alcohol sales further by limiting the sale hours in stores, bars and restaurants?
Should we pull back on the counties where it is sold?
Possibly it was the driving that was at fault. Should we restrict the issuance of licenses for former police officers? Legislators?
Well maybe it was the fact he was ignorant of the law. Possibly we should have put a big sign in all cars telling people it was a crime to drink and drive. How about A big bottle with a red circle and a slash through it on the door of all cars. Possibly more testing, training, background checks, in depth psychological evaluations with higher fees should be required previous to getting a drivers license.
Then why the same requirements for a constitutional freedom? Is alcohol or drunk driving somehow more safe then legal gun ownership or the right to legally carry a gun?
You see, the system worked. A person who was forbidden from doing something wrong was stopped. They were arrested for their alleged criminal activity (Drunk driving) and will probably be punished for it. The periphery arguments are just that. Those who did not support the second amendment previously will not support it now or probably ever.
This incident is just another way for the left to demonize what they already hate and were never going to support anyway. They do it in all arguments. If a priest falters, Are we no longer to talk about God or freedom of religion? If a teacher stumbles are we no longer able to talk about the importance of getting a good education? If a writer prints a negative article should we no longer support the freedom of the press? If a black man commits a crime are we no longer able to talk about the equality of all races? If we only wait for the perfect time with the perfect people to advance any cause we believe in we will end up waiting forever for everything and end up with nothing.
Those who supported us because of those causes will see we are no better then the alternative or past status quo. We ran on second amendment freedom. We attack our opponents for their lack of support of those freedoms. Why would we back up on our support of those freedoms because one person did something stupid?