OPINION – We’ve had a week for the shock of the mass shooting at the “Route 91 Harvest Music Festival” outdoor concert in Las Vegas to begin to settle. The best and worst of humanity was on display as strangers selflessly came to one another’s aid in the face of calculating, pitiless evil in action.
Incredible stories of bravery, heroism and sacrifice have been slowly surfacing as survivors and other bystanders have begun to share their accounts. There are some powerful examples for those who are still capable of being inspired by the goodness in others.
They include the brave souls who led people to safety or shielded loved ones with their own bodies as indiscriminate gunfire raked the crowd. Or the cab driver who helped concertgoers escape with no thought of taking payment.
They could be seen in the attendees with emergency medical training who helped the wounded and dying in the dark or the ER nurses who tirelessly worked to comfort and prioritize those who were brought to their hospital.
All were shining illustrations of how we ought to respond in the face of inhumanity. They represent a small but essential source of light in a rapidly darkening world.
As is often the case, these authentic examples of concern and goodness were quickly crowded aside by crass political grandstanders looking for some way to exploit the horror to their advantage.
It’s not just the pathetic gun control groupies who would fit everyone for diapers just because one individual messed his pants. Their infatuation with control is founded on the totalitarian notion that having sufficient power over their fellow men will somehow prevent evil from taking place. Where have we heard that before?
They honestly don’t recognize the immorality inherent in their lust to deprive innocent people of their essential natural rights like the right to defend their lives.
This exploitation also could be seen in those who immediately sought some way to tie the accused shooter to a particular political or religious philosophy. It’s sad that so many people find identity in who or what they are against, and some actually hope that acts of barbarism will serve to justify their hatred.
As our societal decline continues unabated, the divisions are showing more clearly than ever. It’s likely that we’ve reached the point where changing minds is no longer an option.
That’s not a call to violence such as we’ve seen in the groups that claim to promote “tolerance” even as they’re beating innocent people over the head with signs that read “Stop the Hate.”
It’s more of an acknowledgement that trying to reason with those who have slipped beyond the event horizon of irrationality is a waste of our time and theirs. Rather than engaging in pointless purse-swinging on social media, we’d be wise to focus on fortifying our own lives for whatever lies ahead.
This means choosing carefully what we allow to occupy our attention and accepting some hard realities regarding the times in which we live. It’s time to choose a side, assuming you haven’t already done so.
If your choice is to be on the side of freedom, then bickering over gun control is a waste of time. It’s not that there isn’t a serious principle at stake, but rather the time for arguing over this principle is long past.
Instead, we should be steadily and thoughtfully building our shooting supplies and developing our skills at arms. This is akin to voting with your wallet, and Americans have been doing so at an astonishing rate since Obama’s first term.
The value of high-quality defensive firearms training cannot be overstated. It will immunize you to the popular myths and misconceptions regarding firearms and their role in personal protection.
Our personal tool chests of freedom should be well stocked regardless of whether others express disapproval. This should be done out of a sense of personal responsibility and not out of panic that something may soon be banned.
Free men do not beg for permission from their would-be rulers to exercise God-given rights. They understand their rights and have sufficient courage to defend them as necessary.
Popularity is a lesser consideration than the willingness to stand for what is right.
Politicians will sell us out. It’s in their nature to portray themselves as the solution to every problem. That’s why after the killings in Las Vegas, they’re falling all over themselves to appear relevant. Our interests are not their interests.
Once we understand the necessity of the right to keep and bear arms, we don’t need to argue with those most determined to infringe on that right.
Our strongest answer to their misguided pleadings and threats should be the unapologetic exercise of all our rights through our peaceful, yet determined, actions rather than angry words.
One way or another, they’ll get the message.
Bryan Hyde is an opinion columnist specializing in current events viewed through the lens of common sense. The opinions stated in this article are his and not representative of St. George News.
Email: [email protected]
Twitter: @youcancallmebry
Copyright St. George News, SaintGeorgeUtah.com LLC, 2017, all rights reserved.
Thanks for the Article
As you state Bryan, the right to defend ourselves goes way beyond the constitution, but is God-given. Contrary to your opinion, the liberals continue to preach that we should trust the government to protect us. Just ask 6,000,000 Jews in Germany how that worked for them after Hitler took their guns away. Our liberties are God-given, not government given.
Have you seen the photo stating, “Gun control. Because you cannot get people to get in cattle cats if they are armed?”
Wonderful. If the politicians want to do what an Obama advisor said, which was to never waste a crisis, they should look at the criminal justice system, including gangs, and to mental health issues. The majority of deaths using a gun are suicide and gang wars.
I don’t recall the city, but recently a city decided to eliminate all their data identifying gang members because it wasn’t fair to the gang members. Criminals involved with guns are not getting appropriate sentencing. Mental health resource aren’t always there for those who want help.
At the local philosophical gathering place late Friday night , hmmmm, this topic was discussed and analyzed. Our final conclusion was simple. The urban demographic Is ignorant when it comes to guns. The rural culture is not. If you lived in an urban culture you would likely agree that guns are a big problem and need to be rectified . That is because they are misused and misunderstood in urban culture with the exception of the criminal element. If you transplant an urbanite into rural America, within a year or so, they will get the other side of the equation, and understand it. With all due respect to mentally handicapped people , we as a rural culture need to understand that when it comes to guns, the urban culture is simply retarded . Yes there are exceptions but this is a general construct . If you do not realize this, then there’s no way to solve the problem . Polarization gets you nowhere . But it sure makes you feel good for a moment. 🙂
I agree with the analysis of a rural vs urban divide on the issue. Your name calling is crude and ignores the way in which our lived experience shapes opinion. I have helped change the opinion of alot of liberal city dwellers on the subject of gun ownership and the 2nd Amendment through thoughtful dialog, which Hyde is encouraging we abandon. I hunt and own a gun or two for home defense and experienced the transition in worldview you describe. But it took thoughtful friends to help me change and I think we can continue that tradition but it takes a real effort. Radicalizing the way Hyde is recommending doesn’t provide a venue for that effort and actually undermines any attempts to do so.
I find it unfortunate that St George News has decided to give a platform to such a radicalized columnist. Bryan Hyde has admitted he doesn’t see a reason for a about gun regulation but instead encourages the minority of gun owners like him to arm themselves further. He has drawn a line in the sand and is encouraging citizens to prepare for “whatever lies ahead”.
Byran Hyde is a right-wing extremist. And before others say it, yes, there are left-wing extremist pushing for radical measures on gun regulation. The New Yorker ran a piece about allowing “no truce with the 2nd Amendment” which also is radical and inflames the national conversation. All too often these are the types of voices being amplified by social media (something Bryan Hyde is using to help market Libertas).
I encourage St George News to reconsider the use of Bryan Hyde as a columnist. He has voluntarily stated that the time for discussion is over. What is the point of employing a columnist that doesn’t see a point to civil discourse and encourages local citizens to abandon dialog? Make no mistake, Hyde is an extremist who is trying to persuade citizens to arm themselves. He pays lip service to “peaceful” action but concludes with an unsubtle and contradictory “One way or another, they’ll get the message”.
I am part of the national minority that own guns but I refuse to be part of this type of extremism.
Bike, I like you, man. You’re so extreme that you can’t even recognize your own extremism. Calling for the local newspaper to ban a columnist because you disagree with him is every bit as extreme as anything the columnist said, but you’re so adrift in your own little boat – which I strongly believe you should christen “The Virtue Signaler” – that all other opinions besides yours are just ships that pass in the night. I wonder if you have ever admitted to being wrong about something. Perhaps you wonder the same about me. Anyway, have a nice day, Bike.
I have admitted I was wrong on this very website, about state fiscal stats and 1-2 other times. Openly apologized.
It’s not about disagreeing. Its about a paid columnist calling for citizens to stockpile weapons in response to a political debate. Asking the paper to reconsider providing him a platform is not remotely the same as persuading his audience to abandon civil dialog and arm themselves. Those recommendations are light years apart in substance and scale. Newspapers change columnist all the time.
I have disagreed with most posts by Hyde but this is the only time I have made such a recommendation. There are plenty of Libertarian-esque voices to draw from that don’t encourage their readers to radicalize this way. There is a fundamental difference between acknowledging the rationale and importance of the 2nd Amendment and telling people the time for conversation “has long passed” and encouraging them to stock up on firearms and “fortifying our own lives for whatever lies ahead”. This is the rhetoric of extremists and revolutions and a local newspaper would be wise to reconsider giving a platform to such provocation in moments of such heated divisiveness.
It sounds to me like what you’re saying is that we need to have a public discourse about this, as long as the opinions you most disagree with are excluded.
To me it’s not particularly radical to suggest that people stockpile firearms. It is a thing that is done – people are stockpiling firearms somewhere even as we speak; I know of several collections of firearms right here in St. George that could easily be classified as “stockpiles.”
Perhaps there’s a certain radical undertone to “fortifying our own lives for whatever lies ahead,” but that’s a far cry from calling for revolution. If that’s not putting words in someone else’s mouth, I don’t know what is.
I’ll tell you, man, I’d love to shut some people up sometimes, and you might even be one of those people, Bike…sometimes. You are quite capable of saying something truly ridiculous in a seemingly intelligent manner. And I think to myself, “Is this actually swaying opinions; are some of these Eskimos actually going to buy these ice cubes?” And maybe the answer is “Maybe.” So yeah, I’d like to put you right out of the conversation. Sometimes.
But then at other times (very rarely), you say something cogent that actually makes me think. And sure, we’re pretty much diametrically opposed on pretty much every issue. But you’re no dummy.
So instead of wanting you gone, I prefer to continue the conversation. Maybe I’ll change your mind about something. Maybe you’ll change mine. Very, very unlikely, I agree – but there could be a softening of certain views that comes about by…continuing the conversation.
What I’d like to see from you rather than the Nuclear Option is a lucid point-by-point argument about what Bryan Hyde has said here. WHY is he wrong, as opposed to “He’s wrong, off with his head!”
You may hate some of the things I say, and you may dislike me quite a bit. But you will admit, I’m sure, that I never rebut you with “Shut up, Bike!” I present my arguments against what you have said, clearly and concisely. And I win, of course, every time, but that’s beside the point – the point being that you’re behaving rather childishly, which surprises me.
But hey, you do your workout and I’ll do mine.
I can understand the concern. I don’t take the idea lightly. I don’t believe in censoring views I happen to disagree with . Living in a rural, conservative region has helped me learn a ton. You will notice I mostly engage people who I disagree with. I learn from them. I follow sources, etc.
That said, Bryan Hyde reached a dangerous crescendo with this piece. We are seeing an amplification of rhetoric across the board from extremes on both wings. Like I said, writers like I shared in the New Yorker are calling for a war on the 2nd Amendment, a clear concern for people who value liberty and the Constitution, while Hyde is encouraging people to arm themselves for whatever is coming. Where does that leave room to discuss and try to find possible solutions, if there are any, that are nuanced and Constitutional. The fact is a plurality of Americans support gun regulation which is supported by SCOTUS rulings by even conservative justices. But Hyde has rhetorically deligitimized the government’s capacity to regulate firearms and placed the sole authority in the hands of citizens. He was obtuse in that idea: “Free men do not beg for permission from their would-be rulers to exercise God-given rights. They understand their rights and have sufficient courage to defend them as necessary.” That is a dangerous cocktail.
I clearly support passionately disagreeing with others. Bryan Hyde claims even that time has passed. And I consider that and a dangerous call to arms plenty of reason to challenge his privilege of writing for this website.
So on one extreme side of the debate, you have those who want everyone disarmed completely. On the other extreme side of the debate, you have someone like Bryan Hyde, who wants the government out of the business of trying to alter or end our Constitutional right to bear arms (uninfringed) altogether.
Of these two extreme factions, and all points in between for that matter, I can say with no hesitation that Bryan Hyde’s faction is the one with the with the U.S. Constitution on its side. It is the one that, in fact, reflects EXACTLY the law of the land.
You say “Hyde has rhetorically delegitimized the government’s capacity to regulate firearms and placed the sole authority in the hands of citizens.” Actually, it’s the Constitution that rhetorically delegitimized the government’s capacity to regulate firearms and placed the sole authority in the hands of the citizens. “THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.” It couldn’t be any more unquestionable, indisputable, or incontrovertible. There’s no gray area there. Every gun regulation in existence is clearly unconstitutional.
But we compromise. The government says we can’t have such-and-such weapon. Okay, most people don’t want such-and-such weapon, so they just let it happen. But that means the people who DO want such-and-such weapon just had their right to keep and bear arms infringed, even though the Constitution says that can’t happen.
Well, now that we’ve compromised, let’s compromise some more. And some more. And some more. And why not some more? And since we’ve apparently already decided the 2nd Amendment doesn’t mean what it says and carries no weight, why not compromise even more?
How deep does the compromise hole go? Who knows, because it’s been a very long time since we forgot about the fact that we were never supposed to, required to, or even allowed to compromise in the first place.
I know you’re not some “pathetic gun control groupie,” Bike. But at a certain point, the compromising has to end. And here’s Bryan Hyde encouraging us to remember that plain and simple fact.
I’m sorry, I just don’t see this article the way you see it, Bike. I think Bryan Hyde is a true patriot, and his “extreme” views on gun control are calling for nothing more than the law to be obeyed.
It’s the other extreme that wants to violate the law. Does that make them criminals? Maybe it should, but we don’t treat gun control folks that way. THEY are the ones being hailed as patriots, they’re the ones who are our great protectors! Why? Because mass shootings scare the bejeezus out of people. Even the fake ones.
Well, mass shootings aren’t the real threat. They account for an infinitesimal percentage of gun deaths. Most gun deaths occur at the hands of good old-fashioned garden-variety criminals out for a dollar, revenge, a thrill, or street rep. Those criminals will always have guns. And we need protection from those criminals. We don’t need our hands tied, ILLEGALLY, by our own government, at the insistence of a bunch of screaming ninnies preying on people’s irrational fear.
I think you need a new definition for “extremism,” Bike. Because being adamant in defending one’s Constitutional rights and encouraging others to step up to the plate as well isn’t it.
First, the myth of continously eroding away at our right to bear arms is false. In my lifetime its been slowly expanded, from previous legal application, through SCOTUS rulings and removal of bans. For 20+ years any expanded regulation has been a stalemate. I don’t necessarily see that as a problem as I recognize major legislation was never meant to be an easy task in the US. But you are conflating the heated political rhetoric on the left with actual legality. The reality is the number of guns owned by civilians has doubled in 50 years; thats not reflective of a country in which the 2nd Amendment has been steadily chipped away.
I trust SCOTUS more than Hyde when it comes to the Constitution. They have hashed out the meanings of the Bill of Rights through time and actual jurisprudence doesn’t align with such a absolutist interpersonal of the 2nd Amendment. Some of the most historically cherished justices have agreed that the liberties in the Constitution are not unlimited.
Extremist definition:a person who holds extreme or fanatical political or religious views, especially one who resorts to or advocates extreme action
Extreme definition: (of a person or their opinions) advocating severe or drastic measures; far from moderate, especially politically.
Calling for increased civilian armament in a nation that already posseses 300 million guns in the civilian population is the definition of extremist: ie advocating views that are “far from moderate” and severe.
Its also an extreme view that the Constitution and founding fathers deligitimized the federal government. They clearly limited its power in relationship to our natural rights but limit is different than deligitimize. The extreme absolutist view pushed by Hyde focuses solely on the ideology of the anti-federalist in our founding era but ignores the diverse other influences.
Plus, your quote is wrong as it ignores an important comma that connects the “shall not be infringed” to the other clauses.
If you take guns from citizens, then you must take guns away from law enforcement too, along with all of government.
You wouldn’t want that would you? An unarmed society where only criminals have guns. It would be catastrophic. Oh wait! I think Hillary is a fan and spokesperson, with many followers, fighting for an unarmed society.
Excellent column. I particularly enjoyed the phrase “pathetic gun control groupies.” That gave me a warm fuzzy.
You’re absolutely right that the time for changing minds is over, Bryan, but with one caveat. I believe that the continued application of intelligent counterpoint to youthful liberal thought is important. Adult minds are not going to be changed. If we’re honest, most liberals are liberals because they have either trained themselves to ignore hard truths or are simply incapable of abstract thought. But the public discourse must include this constant debate between wisdom and foolishness.
Let’s never forget that 15-year-old boy poking around on the internet, still wondering about his own political identity, perhaps experimenting by posting some lib-think he heard in school on this forum or that, putting out feelers. This boy must be verbally crushed. By someone like, well…me, or maybe Bryan Hyde, or some other uncompromising conservative, before he will begin to see the truth – while there’s still time.
So I agree with this article 95%. In fact I’d even say it energized me. But I don’t agree that we should start speaking with our wallets instead of our words. Both are important.
Just a note to remind all you politically correct liberals ,”THE 2ND AMENDMENT IS NOT NEGOTIABLE” So stop your whining.
If you mean the 2nd Amendment should stand, unrevised, I agree. But even the most expansive SCOTUS case ruling in favor of individual gun ownership stated:
“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose”
And this was from one of the most revered conservative justices of our lives, Antonin Scalia.
Interesting world that Bryan Hyde and NickDanger live in. According to Hyde “we should be steadily and thoughtfully building our shooting supplies and developing our skills at arms”. Then there is Nick’s nonsense about some fictional boy on the internet and his view that the “boy must be verbally crushed” so he can conform to Nick’s point of view.
I don’t have a problem with guns. I’ve enjoyed shooting them and I don’t want to take away people’s guns. I just dislike the military-style guns that seem to always be a part of mass shootings and I am concerned that there will be even more powerful weapons in the future. It is too bad we can’t even talk about that.
“I just dislike the military-style guns that seem to always be a part of mass shootings and I am concerned that there will be even more powerful weapons in the future. It is too bad we can’t even talk about that.”
We can definitely talk about that, Karen. In fact, I tried to start a conversation, with you, about that, just a couple days ago. Perhaps you remember the question, “If a criminal breaks into your house armed with an automatic or semi-automatic combat rifle, do you really want to be standing there with a .22 pistol in your hand?”
You didn’t answer that question, because like so many liberals, you don’t really want to talk about that. What you want to do is state your personal “dislike” for such weapons – a modern phenomenon we conservatives have recently identified as the social deviation called “virtue signaling.” What you’re interested in, as opposed to contending with reality via logic and reason, is expressing your own idealism, which is admirable in children, but incredibly counter-productive and harmful in adults.
No worries though, I can answer that question for you so you don’t have to sully your pristine self-image – no, you don’t want to be standing there with a .22 pistol in your hand. You want to be armed with an equally powerful or more powerful weapon so that you, and your family, have an even chance of living through an ordeal brought into your home by some lowlife scumbag.
Do you really want to put every law-abiding citizen in the country at a substantial strategic disadvantage against the criminal element? They will always be armed with the most advanced weaponry they can get their hands on. That’s like a football fan insisting that the coach play the game with 8 men on the field instead of 11. All the other fans are wondering why you’d even say something like that, and who you’re really rooting for.
I will engage in a discussion about gun safety with anyone but a “Sandy Hook Truther”. ‘Nuff said.
Maybe that is too kind. A Sandy Hook denier is what most people would call people with your views. Whatever.
I take heart in the fact those conversations happen all the time away from the internet and pundits like Bryan Hyde. Its sounds like we both are found somewhere in the middle of the spectrum. Wish there was more talking across the aisle amongst our politicians though.
My father is a prepper and it sounds like more extremist like Hyde are escalating their rhetoric. There has always been a fringe movement calling citizens to arm themselves heavily but the tone and tenor is changing. We live in the age of a reactive masculinity that is getting really amped up in their internet bubbles. Don’t know how much material you have read of Bryan Hyde’s but he has been steadily ramping up his fear mongering the last few months.
Yes, I have followed and commented on Bryan Hyde’s writings before. When he calls fellow citizens “the masses” he is trying to impress readers with his “vast” knowledge and suggests he is better than everyone else. But, you are right, this column of Hyde’s suggesting “It’s likely that we’ve reached the point where changing minds is no longer an option” and we need to buy more guns is pretty sad.
Remember one thing- if you take away military style guns, the mass shooters will find a way to make an automatic weapon.
Guns aren’t the problem. Hearts without God is the problem.
80% of criminal arrests and incidents involve hand guns with the majority .35 caliber or above. ARs are common in mass shootings but most of them are committed by folks who don’t have access to automatic weapons or the proficiency. The reason they choose ARs is because the .223 caliber has mild recoil and are relatively simple weapons to learn. Automatic weapons require more skill (think about training hours for military).
Any ban on ARs (improbable) would most likely grandfather the millions in circulation. Those would likely still be the weapon of choice for the reasons stated above. Anyone like Paddock, ie no record or issues that would prevent purchase, could still obtain them.
The chance of an Australian style ban and mandatory buy-back in America is slim to none.
Nice exchange above but we are all back where we started folks. Snake is biting it’s tail, yuh think. Let’s see, we can ban this writer as somebody stated above, and one side will be happy, or simply say the case is closed, i.e 2nd Am.. Either way this column wouldnt exist and this Civil discourse (always civil when Nick Danger is in the house by the way) would not have taken place. So I stated the root cause of the problem earlier, right or wrong. So let’s cut to the chase does anybody have a real solution? I am simply not an expert on this topic , as I am not a gun owner. But I do have insight regarding urban and rural sociology . Maybe let’s put our thinking caps on again. Just a stupid idea I guess I want to see 10 more replies, or we can do better and try again . Civilly , of course.
In an ideal situation we hold off on any specific bans but fund the CDC to collect data on gun violence. Such research stopped after 1996 because of an informal funding resolution known as the “Dickey Amendment”. End that funding stalemate and allow the government to track gun related violence in America. See if the research finds anything important that would help reduce specific types of violence (ie, stop congesting gun stats with everything from suicides to mass shootings). Even the namesake of that stalemate thinks its time.
Mr.Hyde, You are an ass
How come you didn’t get edited?
Liberals have a dependency on government and conviction that all social ills can be cured through legislation. It’s going to be difficult to convince them to self defend.
Perhaps those who feel the government should control all weapons should surrender their firearms to the current government. Trump and the many police agencies would love to have total power and leave you defenseless. Is that what you want?
Enough time on this. I’m off to the range and get some practice in.
Good article Bryan. While I “might” agree with some about whether or not the time to debate is over I admit that over the last decade I have become more and more concerned about politicians efforts to curtail our 2nd Amendment rights. For some reason it seems that “Democratic” politicians seem to be the ones wanting to disarm the citizens….
Those of you who feel that citizens should disarm, probably should give up your personal weapons.
Or, is this political. Show your conviction or STFU.