The ACLU makes its 'pro-liberty case' for further restrictions on gun ownership

We’ve already seen plenty of wits on Twitter argue that guns should be banned because they infringe on other people’s right to life. Look, here’s one now:

This has repeatedly been my point. What about *my* right to life and liberty, free from the worry of being gunned down in some public space? Are my rights not just as important?

— Ixxiebelle ✌?❤️✊? (@ixxiebelle) July 18, 2018

Fortunately, the ACLU isn’t quite making that argument in its piece called, “A Pro-Liberty Case for Gun Restrictions.”

The wide availability of guns and their misuse is leading to restrictions on Americans’ freedom, and that needs to be part of the firearms debate. https://t.co/DhEoGdVrdn

— ACLU (@ACLU) July 18, 2018

To be honest, the piece is worth a read — not that we agree with it. In short, the argument goes that because guns are so widely available, and because things like mass shootings “create a pervasive sense of insecurity and anxiety that politicians and policymakers will inevitably seek to address,” Americans’ freedoms are limited by things like increased physical searches, more surveillance, more armed police at social events, and … more police shootings.

Look at it this way: it’s like the kids at Parkland who complained they’d have to carry transparent backpacks when they returned to school after the mass shooting there. They had to trade privacy for an increased sense of security — and they didn’t like it and likely didn’t feel any more secure.

So, are we buying the argument? Not really. Because someone else’s “pervasive sense of insecurity and anxiety” about guns shouldn’t infringe on someone’s Second Amendment right to own one. And to many who own guns legally, their firearms contribute to their sense of security. More gun control equals more freedom? Um, no.

Excuse you, but that wide availability of firearms for law-abiding citizens to use for lawful purposes IS ACTUALLY AN ENUMERATED RIGHT THAT EXISTS FOR US TO DEFEND OUR FREEDOM, FROM BOTH CRIME AND TYRANNY. And that's the sum and substance of any debate. https://t.co/qRLM4kHZm0

— Amy Swearer (@AmySwearer) July 18, 2018

The right of rape survivors to defend themselves from aggression has never mattered to the ACLU.

— ResilientWaysFndn (@RwaysResilient) July 18, 2018

"We had to destroy the liberty in order to save it."

-ACLU, apparently. https://t.co/WNQK9xX11R

— Stephen Green (@VodkaPundit) July 18, 2018

"We must give the government more power to regulate what you own, and more power to arrest you if you refuse to obey, all because of the actions of criminals under the current laws."

What a joke the ACLU has become. https://t.co/2Togf6lZ7q

— Michael (@DefinitelyMike) July 18, 2018

It isn’t the wide availability of guns that leads to restrictions on freedom. It is the use of guns to commit crimes that is the problem. The vast majority of gun owners do not use them to commit crimes. Restrict and punish criminals, not law-abiding gun owners. https://t.co/UZLD4iH4GB

— Ken Gardner (@KenGardner11) July 19, 2018

A "pro-liberty case" for the destruction of liberty. https://t.co/X8pyzNuU1b

— Joseph Greenlee (@Joseph_Greenlee) July 19, 2018

There is no pro-liberty argument for restricting liberty. https://t.co/EIVqqbeSMS

— Pierre (@phoneyman) July 18, 2018

You don't have a right to be free from worry and banning guns wouldn't change anything.

— Metal Perception (@Metal_Sight) July 18, 2018

How would that even be enforced?

— Dalton(omg) (@omgdalton) July 18, 2018

https://twitter.com/BrowningMachine/status/1019724607694176256

Coming soon from an ACLU near you "The wide availability of encryption and its misuse is leading to restrictions on Americans’ freedom, and that needs to be part of the privacy debate."

— Eli Shadrach (@EliShadrach) July 18, 2018

Soon: "The wide availability of smartphones, social media and their misuse is leading to restrictions on Americans’ freedom, and that needs to be part of the free speech debate."

Holy mackerel, why even have a "civil liberties" union if they don't care?https://t.co/PcKbg8ifvd

— ThΔt Cozy Pooka (@TheQuQu) July 18, 2018

The wide availability of criminal defense lawyers and their misuse is leading to restrictions on Americans' freedoms, and that needs to be part of the 'criminal justice reform' debate. https://t.co/qMAXBBrCSq

— Justicar (@Integralmathyt) July 18, 2018

"People being able to speak freely is leading to restrictions on speech, and that needs to be part of the free speech debate" https://t.co/lC9HxrkId8

— Robert Kroese (@robkroese) July 18, 2018

And the ACLU continues its slow decline from a once venerable rights org. to a wing of the Democratic Party. https://t.co/yXtaK4pCbv

— Amicus Libertatis? (@libertypoles) July 18, 2018

This plea might have held more sway from an ACLU who hadn't started expressing misgivings about speech they found objectionable.

It may be time for a new civil rights organization to fill the gaps the ACLU is leaving.

I'll start sending my donations to @TheFIREorg

— Reappearsay (@RummaTumTums) July 18, 2018

Delete your organization https://t.co/DaZgxLkxhn

— Brandon Franklin (@redheadfranklin) July 18, 2018

Related:

ACLU memo: Free speech cases may take backseat to organization's equality and justice work https://t.co/LEgPeYmqQr

— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) June 22, 2018