The idea of civilian disarmament being based in our culture valuing life is a lie, and one that patriots should expose at every opportunity.
First, civilian disarmament does not save lives, it costs lives, by leaving the victim unable to defend himself. This truth was proven by research done by John Lott, among others.
Second, if saving life was the purpose of gun control, the same people who support it would have done the same things with driving, since far more people are killed in auto accidents than with guns. Plus if guns are taken away there is no end to the other weapons that can be substituted; for example, the biggest mass murders in America have all been committed with things other than guns, but if cars are taken away, or miles driven reduced, what is substituted for them, if anything, is far less lethal, such as walking, bicycling, public transportation, etc.
Look how easy it is to lose your right to bear arms; ANY gun crime can make you lose it, at least for a number of years. So why don't those who supposedly value life so much that they want to make us less free apply the same thing to a driver's license? One mile an hour over the speed limit and you lose your license for ten years. (I don't support this by the way; I just mention it to point out the hypocrisy of anti-gun bigots.
Obviously cars are an important part of our lifestyle. But most of the miles we drive are not essential. There is a direct correlation between total miles driven and fatalities. So why are anti-gun bigots not trying to find ways to reduce the total number of miles driven? For example, they could put a really high tax on gasoline, and have a tax refund for "legitimate" miles driven, which would be to work and back, to the doctor, etc. This alone would save far more lives than could ever hope to be saved through civilian disarmament. So why is something like that not even being mentioned by those who supposedly value life so much?
More important, if everyone who says they support civilian disarmament voluntarily stopped all nonessential driving, more lives would be saved than could ever possibly be saved by gun control, even in the wildest liberal fantasy (well maybe not their wildest fantasy, but any fantasy with even a remote connection to reality). So why haven't they done that, if protecting life is more important to them than freedom? Why have they not given up some of their own freedom to reduce their risk of death?
The answer of course is that gun control really is not about saving lives and never has been. It's all about control, over the many by the few. This makes gun control advocates hypocrites, as well as liars. And when the lies and hypocrisy are stripped away from their propaganda there is nothing left but intolerance, of a mindset they don't agree with. This is why I refer to them as bigots.
Add in the fact that keeping and bearing arms is a Constitutional right while driving is a privilege (as I was reminded of a few times by the nice patrolman in my younger days), and the double standard is even more egregious. They are willing to trample all over a fundamental right, to supposedly do something they could do many times better by infringing on a privilege. They try to destroy our right, but will not even give up a little bit of their own privilege, even though it is verifiable fact that doing so would accomplish the end they claim to be after far better than taking away our right.
And driving is only one among many examples of this hypocrisy.
This hypocrisy is a fundamental lie of gun control, and patriots should not allow our enemy to get away with it. We should make the truth known far and wide. I didn't see the movie, but from one of the comments here it looks like this lie was allowed to stand unchallenged in it.
