A Liberal Inconsistency On Gun Ownership

I frequently target conservatives since they tend to be associated with Biblical Christianity more openly and since they are more likely to explicitly identify with rationality, as liberals are usually more willing to admit the emotionalistic roots of their ideologies.  Nevertheless, liberals cling to many ideas that also merit deconstruction and refutation, even if their adherents are not as quick to overtly claim reason and objective reality are on their side.  Among these ideas is their stance on personal ownership of firearms, an issue that is often tackled by imbeciles from all over the political spectrum.  Conservatives tend to gratuitously glorify the personal use of guns, while liberals tend to fallaciously condemn them.

Liberals often oppose the existence of a legal right to own firearms if the weapons fall within arbitrary categories (or simply oppose any legal allowance to privately own guns), like if a gun is an assault rifle, as if there was a logical line that can be drawn between the legitimacy of possessing one weapon and that of possessing another.  There is no type of firearm is immoral to own.  As long as guns are not available to merely anyone at all who requests them, as psychological and moral stability and familiarity with weapon safety are necessary to legitimize gun ownership, there is no logical or moral basis for laws restricting what kinds of guns can be owned by civilians.

Indeed, it is civilian hands that are intended to be kept from specific types of firearms.  A deep irony is that liberals might decry the police as a group of collectively murderous, racist (conveniently, they ignore the blatant sexism that leads to harsher treatment of men by police) oppressors while also saying that they should be the only ones to carry certain weapons.  The hypocrisy of stereotyping the police while opposing the stereotyping of African Americans aside, it is lunacy to want to reserve the ownership of firearms, whether some or all, for a corrupt police force.

Rather than abandon this inconsistency, opponents of civilian firearm ownership tend to ignore that the fact that someone owns a firearm--or another kind of weapon--is irrelevant to whether the person in question is willing to use it for murder or other illicit purposes.  Liberals are often simply frightened by gun ownership itself, and they allow their subjective preferences to dictate their political and ethical ideologies, which in turn fuels the desire to prohibit others from doing amoral things.  The fact that England has criminalized butter knives highlights the utterly asinine lengths some liberals are willing to go to when it comes to mistaking ownership of an item for the cause of murder.

At best, the standard liberal position on gun ownership is thoroughly flawed.  At worst, it is a position held while the inconsistencies and fallacies are known to its adherents.  There is nothing abnormal about political parties endorsing hypocrisies, assumptions, and contradictions, and the errors of both major political factions in contemporary America need to be corrected until they are abandoned completely.  Gun ownership is merely one of numerous subjects that the right and left often address in thoroughly inept ways, and many of the attitudes towards it exemplify the intellectual incompetence of the primary political parties in America.