So I swung by the Second Amendment Foundation's web site ( http://www.saf.org/ ) in my daily run of debugging scripts, and I saw the video they had with Hannity and Colmes jabbing at Rosie O'Donnell and her very vocal opinion regarding firearms.

I watched these people spiral into a whirlwind of inanity and the way Sean himself seemed to portray his argument almost made the more "liberal" side of the debate look more correct -- which really bothered me.

The debate regarding gun legislation is simply one of Safety vs Freedom. All the other stuff people say is superfluous. Sure, you can use a gun to protect yourself from criminals, sure it would be nice if homicidal maniacs were magically rendered incapable of possessing any weapon at all.

It's really scary to me to think that so many of the people who are lobbying for liberty are so thoroughly inept at it. There needs to be a more lucid argument, Mr. Hannity, than just "should people be allowed to get guns faster?" How about questions like: "Does anybody have the right to impose his own personal wish for safety on other peoples' need for freedom?"

I don't care what the law's about -- be it firearms, seat belts, toxic chemicals, or radio transmitters -- all laws are restrictive acts imposed upon a people to force conformity in a society. Every law passed is a threat to someone's freedoms. There are freedoms that a reasonable people are willing to sacrifice in order to make a functioning society and that's where some of the basic, universally-accepted laws come in. But the line's gotta be drawn somewhere lest we paint ourselves into a very restrictive corner: Legislating every freedom away until we have nothing left to live for.

Too many people argue "but this is a good law! Aren't you a civilized and educated person who recognizes the value of good laws?" I say "good laws" is a bullshit term invented by those who would rather inch their way into a fascist state than face the immediate responsibilities that come with personal liberty. Yes, responsibility is inconvenient! Yes, liberty comes at a high price! I say it's worth it.

The power to preserve one's freedom is under attack -- not just on matters concerning the Second Amendment: Freedom to speak, worship, and live our lives as we see fit is constantly being encroached upon by all these "good laws" that people keep wanting imposed upon every last person -- and they do so entirely (perhaps deliberately) blind of the consequence and perfectly willing to jockey formalities that push the burden of responsibility upon another future generation.

If Rosie O'Donnell really cared about thirteen-year-old girls who were getting murdered at school, she would go to a school and soak the bullets aimed at those girls. She wouldn't just moan about it to the press as if whining somehow raised the girls from the dead. If she really cared about removing guns from the world, she would invest the effort to punish those who have them. She's not willing to kill and be killed for these causes that she speaks so vehemently about and therefore I cannot take her seriously.

Those who promote more freedom to own, carry, and use firearms are implicitly willing to risk being shot. Every member of the NRA, the SAF, and all the other freaky-gun-lover-lobbyists clubs are knowingly promoting congressional behavior that comes with the implicit danger that they will be killed by a crazy person at Trolley Square. Their cause is so important to them that they are willing to be killed as a natural byproduct of it. What in the world could possibly so valuable that people are willing to risk their very lives to preserve it? What could possibly be so precious that decent people (who exhibit no desire to harm others) would work so hard at keeping such dangerous tools freely available? Obviously, the intent to own implies the intent to use and somehow decent people have the intent on hurting and possibly killing others for this cause.

Freedom is of paramount importance to any true American. To those who understand Freedom's real value, all other considerations (INCLUDING SAFETY!) are secondary. Freedom is so sacred to us that we willingly risk and even sacrifice life itself to preserve it. Some may assume this just means we debase the value of life. The opposite is true. Those who devalue freedom are devaluing the lives of those who fought and died for it. It is the people who mock the value of freedom who do not see the value of life. It is those who resist the cause of personal liberty that desecrate the graves of every free man who's body was mutilated by a tyrant's command.

The facts are very clear on the matter: Freedom is not safe. Freedom is implicitly dangerous. Yes, this also means that a free people are potentially dangerous people. If you have a problem with that, perhaps you should conjure the ghosts of dead patriots and debate the matter with them.