What happens when you put the thought of feeling negative about a problem into the action of solving this said problem based on your feelings? You tend to get a solution whose only basis is the notion of what ‘feels good.’ Example? Let’s use gun control.

Most people are uncomfortable around guns, it’s natural at first. Guns represent danger in one way or the other, whether we want to recognize it or not. Guns can represent the intent to harm, or they can represent the intent to prevent danger. Either way, they always involve danger…and always will involve danger over sport.

Which is where our feelings come into play: ask any 9 year old what they would fear most about a criminal with a gun. They will answer the gun. Ask them, if they could take one thing away from the criminal in order to better protect themselves, what would they take away? They would answer again, they would take the gun away.

That’s logical and understandable. It’s something that we all emotionally believe: criminals should not have guns.

But we can’t live in an emotional stage… not all of us are 14 year old girls (most of us). We live in reality, why? Because we are adults, adults have no choice but to live in reality.

Reality dictates that the only thing that would stop the criminal from pulling a trigger on an unarmed citizen is a choice the criminal would have to mentally make himself, not the goody two shoes questions asked by his or her victim.

The beautiful part about reality is that reality has a perfect solution: the equality of two sides. The reality would dictate that if you asked a 9 year old: “what would you want in order to stop this criminal attacking you?” They would probably say “a gun!” Or, “a bazooka!” because that’s what a 9 year olds does.

But as adults, we have to abandon our good feelings and recognize that we can only get so far. Most illicit citizens won’t recognize our feel good emotions; sometimes you flat our start thinking.

Which is why emotion filled individuals, like Brit-boy Piers Morgan would rather ban guns entirely, it generates from the whole belief that all weapons are bad and if all weapons are bad, then the owners of said weapons are also bad…because they own bad things.

Logical? Yes. Reasonable? No.

Despite what they make think about the weapons causing more violence, have they looked at history? No, of course they haven’t. We as Conservatives need to remember that this very debate over the gun topic is being constructed with an astro-turf narrative by the same people who pushed the ‘Nuclear Winter’ argument during the cold war.

Last time I checked the concept of simply having more muscle than the bigger guy tends to work. Case in point, the Cold War (I’ll go ahead and refer to it again). The fact that our big red button did more damage to our opponent than their big red button did damage to our nation kept our opponents from pressing anything out of fear of annihilation.

It’s type of thinking that has kept America so strong and well protected for generations. Case in point: when the Japanese were planning their invasion of the United States prior to World War 2, Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto told his colleagues in Japan:

“You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.”

Perhaps as Conservatives, instead of constantly trying to show how great our biceps look when we flex our guns, how about we reflect on our rich heritage is because it has benefited from large gun ownership.

What I’m saying is: It’s time for Conservatives to stop thinking with their emotions of being tough, holding their guns, and waving their assault rifle banners. Instead, how about we think with reality and show some examples of why we are right and actually try to fight fire with water… not fire.

Obviously, it’s not working.

Tanner Brumbarger | @brumbarger