In the debate regarding the inalienable right to protect oneself and one's loved ones, it's become painfully clear there's little room for centrists.
Those of us who reject the extremes of both left and right have been pushed to one side or the other by various litmus test issues. The "tribal" view always comes to "us" or "them," and it's hard to reconcile "who is us" and "who is them."
One who strongly advocates for a woman's right to choose control over her own body and also the right for her to choose which pistol she wants for lawful self protection understands this dilemma. Those who advocate most for the former usually advocate against the latter. There's no room left in the middle.
The fact is that both pro-protection advocates and disarmament lobbyists want no repeat of what happened in Sandy Hook ever again! Arguments are based on how or what can be done.
The real question comes to this: If a mentally deranged person (anyone seeking to harm women and children is deranged) finds a way to wreak havoc and gets into a venue; at that point, what are the only effective countermeasures? What works?
It's the answer to that central question that becomes a deciding issue for those of us politically in the middle. What works?
You are either for the right of a lawfully armed individual to protect themselves and those in their charge, or assume disarmament laws and an armed police state will be the beneficial protectors of us all. No room left in the middle; we become a fully polarized society driven by "primate tribalism." It's "us" or "them," and that's a sad state of affairs.
Focus on what works, disregard what doesn't. Then, maybe, "us and them" will become "we."
