Charles Heller is the head of the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. Mr. Heller’s posted an attention-worthy takedown of gun control advocate Colin Goddard at ammoland.com. Goddard, if you’ll remember, is the telegenic survivor of the Virginia Tech shooting who’s enthusiastically thrown his lot in with the Brady bunch. Following the Norway massacre, Goddard predictably commented, “unfortunately, I was soon infuriated by the gun fanatics in America who immediately used this massacre to assert that strong gun laws, like Norway’s, don’t work.” Goddard evidently has the same high standards for determining who qualifies as a ‘gun fanatic’ as our peripatetic poster, mikeb302000…
Namely, anyone who owns a gun is, by definition, a gun fanatic. The mere fact of posession is all that’s necessary for fanatichood. Therefore, no one should own guns. Q.E.D. But Heller’s having none of it, asking “who, Mr. Goddard, is actually the fanatic in this case? Is it common sense self defense advocates, or emotionally convoluted knee-jerk hysterics?” We’ll give you three guesses at the answer.
Let me explain why the Brady Center’s poster boy, Mr. Goddard, embraces methods that are fanatical: He advocates for victim disarmament, in the face of irrefutable evidence that said disarmament actually allows for greater harm to innocent people.
What he advocates is a decreasing of arms in the civilian population. That’s exactly what gives free reign to evil doers who use guns unlawfully. Is that not the advocacy of a fanatic?
Heller attended a screening in Tucson of Goddard’s film, “Living for 32” and had a question for him.
Mr. Goddard described to us all in Tucson how his classmates at Virginia Tech heard the noise of the gun shots, and at first thought it was construction noise. They then heard the noise getting louder, and the teacher opened the door to look, suddenly slamming it shut and telling everyone to get on the floor and dial 911, that there was a man with a gun approaching. Mr. Goddard did so, opened his back pack, retrieved his cell phone, and got through to 911 before he was shot four times by Cho.
Just before the screening of his movie in Tucson, I asked Mr. Goddard: “If there had been a police officer, off duty with his gun sitting next to you, do you think he could have drawn and engaged the shooter with that amount of warning?” (Understand also that Mr. Goddard was an ROTC Cadet, familiar with arms and tactics, and experienced on the M-16 rifle.)
Mr. Goddard’s response to me was, “I have war gamed that over and over in my mind, and I just don’t know.”
It simply has to be said: Mr. Goddard, this is a truly pitiful response.
You seem to be under a hypnotic trance. Do you now actually embrace the lie that holds you hostage?
Think about Mr. Goddard’s reply. He does not know if a police officer could neutralize a deadly threat with about 50 seconds of warning? This from cover, with the assailant coming through a known and restricted entry point?
Heller’s conclusion is that Goddard’s disingenuous non-answer can only be the response of a semi-delusional anti-gun fanatic. One who’s so fully in the tank with the gun grabbers that he can’t admit “a gun in the hand of a righteous man or woman could have saved innocent lives.”
And as for Goddard’s curious claim that the gun lobby is “dancing in the blood” of the Danish victims, Heller calls BS, pointing out that this is merely a textbook case of projection on the part of the gun grabbers.
The truth is that’s exactly what he, and his cohorts and handlers at the Brady Center To Promote Gun Violence, are doing. Just like their victim vulture response to the Giffords shooting in Arizona, it’s to their advantage to do so.
As was tragically demonstrated, all of Norway’s stringent gun laws couldn’t prevent a dedicated wacko from embarking on a murderous spree in a gun-free zone. The only thing that might have mitigated the carnage (someone with a gun to challenge the murderer) is such a violation of elite received wisdom and political correctness that it can’t even be considered.
So there remains but one question, Mr. Goddard: Are you going to allow lawful citizens to shoot violent criminal actors, or are you going to continue to bury dead children, gunned down unchallenged because of “gun control”?
A curious world awaits your answer.
No, a curious world does not await his answer. We already know the answer, and besides, nobody really cares.
Don’t waste your breath on unprincipled opportunists, Mr. Heller. Mr. Goddard makes a fine living being a blood dancer. So does Sarah Brady. Money trumps logic every time.
I wouldn’t call anyone who was a victim of gun violence and now against all guns “unprincipaled”. Whether that be Mr. Goddard or Sarah Brady; and quite frankly it doesn’t drive our Agenda forward.
People they love, knew, cared for, were shot. Some died. It was traumatic enough for them, to completely revault against common sense. I get that.
We need to know how to respectuflly challenge the emotional arguments; particularly when they are made by victims.
When they use their victimhood as a shield to argue in bad faith I don’t think they’re due any respect. And make no mistake, Brady, McCarthy and the others do argue in bad faith.
+1
I’m not certain I know what it meas to “use their victimhood as a shield” or what it maens “to argue in bad faith”.
Brady saw her husband shot and put in a wheel chair. Goddard saw a bunch of his friends shot to a bloody mess in a random assault, while sitting in class one day.
You and me know, that their arguements are bunk. They are completely emotional arguments, with little logic to support their stance.
I just think we need to attack the message, and not the messenger.
I personally believe our right to bear arms, is a battle that has been, and will continue to be waged in the court of public opinion. And if we want to win that war, we need to learn to have patience and sympathy for the victims of gun violence……..while still pounding them with logic and educating them on facts.
“I’m not certain I know what it meas to “use their victimhood as a shield” or what it maens “to argue in bad faith”.
When I say they use their victimhood as a shield I mean that they claim moral authority that they simply aren’t entitled to. They make arguments (which, as you correctly observed, are based entirely on emotion) and then villify the people who disagree with them. This villification often, if not usually, takes the form of “you’re advocating positions that caused my pain”.
They argue in bad faith because they assert things that they know aren’t true and ignore all evidence to the contrary. They often attempt to ban or regulate things they can’t even define, much less understand. And, again, they present opposition to their views as being in favor of mass-murder.
I agree that public opinion matters, and that we win in increments when we confront irrational emotion with logical facts. The message is more important, yes. But when the messenger is deliberately offensive I don’t think we should back off, I think they need to be called on it.
Mr. Gollard was featured in a HBO “documentary” about Guns in the US. A real mud job against the 2nd ammendment. And as expected, Mr. Gollard was completely disingenuous.
So believe me. I agree with you whole heartedly. My prefference would be to call him out personally.
But I believe we would be better off deconstructing his message, and not assasinating the victim? (No pun intended)
“And if we want to win that war, we need to learn to have patience and sympathy for the victims of gun violence”
But it’s such utter crap. When someone is maimed or killed by a wacko with a knife you don’t hear people screaming for banning knives. If someone is run over intentionally with a car, they don’t try to ban cars. The list goes on – only with guns do they try to blame the inanimate object instead of the human wielding it.
How does telling the truth not drive our Agenda forward? My Agenda is to put Goddard and Brady out of business by holding them up to the public ridicule and shame that they deserve. Do you want me to feel sorry for them? I don’t. They gave up their claim to my sympathy when they sold out.
Suzanna Gratia Hupp lost both her parents in the Luby’s Cafeteria Massacre because she had been temporarily disarmed by state law. She then became a successful leader for CCW in Texas and the nation. She has my respect and my sympathies.
Hupp was a successful chiropractor prior to the Luby’s massacre and didn’t need the Texas statehouse job. Goddard, on the other hand, is a no-talent, no job opportunist who sold out for money. Likewise Sarah Brady, on the payroll of the Joyce Foundation.
“How does telling the truth not drive our Agenda forward?”
Where do I begin with that? If the maker of Spanks actually told the truth to women, that “no, we can’t make your size 20 ass look like a size 6, but instead, we can just smooth out the cottatge cheese”, they would be truthful, but not drive their agenda of selling more spanks.
Yes, Goddard and Brady are whacked. But I just think we should put their message out of business, and not assasinate the charachter of a victim.
Marketing and PR 101. Which ironically, is probably Criminal Defense 101…attack the message, attack the story, don’t attack the victim.
In this forum…meh..no matter. We are all on the same page. But in public, where we would do well to inlfuence others to our way of thinking…
+1! A buddy of mine used to work for HP. He told me “If HP wanted to sell sushi, they’d market it as “Cold Dead Fish v. 1.0.” Perception IS reality.
And I loved the Spanks analogy. The scariest words in the English language:
Perception is NOT reality. That’s the kind of politics that put us in the shithole we’re digging out of now. If I can’t be honest, I’m as bad as they are. No, I’m worse, because I know right from wrong.
Ralph, I think what they’re trying to say is this:
“Put the donut down, you’re a fat bastard” and “I’m concerned for your health, I wish you’d get more exercise” can both be true, but one of them will get a better response from the listener than the other. No one is suggesting we don’t have the truth on our side… we do. They’re saying that presenting that truth in a more pleasant way will yield better results.
At least, I think that’s what they’re saying.
+1
Yes, that is the point we are making.
If we are going to be good stewards of the 2nd ammendment, it wouldn’t hurt to learn how to effectively argue our views in a way that doesn’t alienate people we want voting with us, outside of this forum.
Truth or not, most people don’t like to see victims attacked. Which is exactly why they (people like Gollard and Brady) make effective spokes persons for the special interest groups against our right to bear arms.
If we are going to choose to be outspoken about our cause, we should learn to be as careful and deliberate with our words, as we are with our firearms.
Another great analogy with the doughnuts.
I know the point they’re making. I’m saying that I won’t play by those rules. You guys be the diplomats, the NRA if you will. I’m fine with that. But I’m me, and I’m going for the jugular by calling a prick a prick.
Quite right. The dude who’s tripping his brains out may well perceive some pretty crazy stuff as being real, but his perception doesn’t make it real. I hate that trite and thoughtless saying.
Two types of people emerge from surviving the midst of Virginia Tech: those who gain wisdom in the fragility of social laws and become stronger for it, and those who become victims looking for anyone and everyone to blame in light of the personal insecurities they can’t reconcile. Guess which one Goddard is.
I truly hope he never completed ROTC…I wouldn’t want this kind of person in the Army with lives depending on him, much less as an officer.
+1
We have enough problems with the Dr. Hasans and Bwadley Mannings sullying the uniform.
Are you going to allow lawful citizens to shoot violent criminal actors, or are you going to continue to bury dead children, gunned down unchallenged because of “gun control?
Damn that’s a good line. It belongs on a plaque or something.
Because I majored in Philosophy, I appreciate being called peripatetic. But I must take issue with being categorized with the ones who believe this: “anyone who owns a gun is, by definition, a gun fanatic.”
Since you’re so obviously wrong about me in this matter, I guess you’re wrong about Colin. What do you think?
I think I’ve asked you before to define the difference between a gun owner and a “gun fanatic” or, in your words, a gun nut. You declined. Care to take a crack at it now to enlighten us all?
*crickets chirping*
“Because I majored in Philosophy…”
Well, now we all know why he makes no sense.
I don’t want to blame it on philosphy. I wax philosophic from time to time, and I generally make more sense at it than Mike does.
Daniel, I don’t recall your having asked me that before, but I will say this. I rarely use the term “gun nut.” I think it has slight negative connotations similar one of your favorites, “gun grabber,” and unlike you I try to express myself without resorting to name calling.
The difference between gun owner and gun fanatic, I guess would be a graduating thing. The guy who has a gun for home protection and takes it to the range once in a while is a gun owner. Robert Farago is a gun fanatic.
I hope that doesn’t sound like I’m trying to be insulting or a smart-ass. I’m not. If I loved something, I’d readily call myself a fanatic for that thing.
I guess you could say I’m a gun-control fanatic. But somehow that sounds more derogatory than calling Robert a gun fanatic. Is there a difference, do you think? Or is any use of “fanatic” negative and derogatory?
Unfortunately your silly standards don’t really apply across all your ilk.
” The guy who has a gun for home protection and takes it to the range once in a while is a gun owner. ”
and then some of your freaks think the mere fact that I own a gun is reason enough to call me a “fanatic.”
I saw Hupp’s interview on a recent show and she refused to be a good lil sheep and die without a fight like this fool goddard wants us to do. I love your style Dan, keep up the great work.
Let me share what I just learned:
Peripatetic (adjective): a follower of Aristotle or adherent of Aristotelianism
Aristotelian : of or relating to the Greek philosopher Aristotle or his philosophy
You’re welcome.
Well, that’s one definition. I was going for “walking about or from place to place.” Mikey runs around from post to post leaving little…droppings. Then refuses to defend what he writes when challenged. As above.
He fancies himself as a philosopher but I view him as more of a pedestrian gadfly.
Philosophy means love of wisdom – not hiding one’s head and mumbling emotional arguments, preferring such to reality.
Somewhat unrelated – I love how peripatetic sort of rhymes with “very pathetic”
What did the philosophy major say at his first job?
“You want fries with that?”
🙂
Though I’m not a doctor or a psychiatrist, I think that I can somewhat understand what Mr. Goddard must be going through. He experienced a scarcely imaginable and extremely traumatic experience. He survived and lived to tell the tale, from his perspective. Is it not reasonable to expect that Mr. Goddard is reacting and behaving the way he is out of survivor’s guilt and PTSD? Is there a day, or even a minute, that he doesn’t relive what he went through and asks himself all of the whys and the what ifs?
Speaking only for myself and having not experienced his particular horror, I’m pretty sure that had I reacted as he had, my heart and soul would be ripped apart. To know that I could have possibly done something to mitigate the carnage, and not done so, when given fair warning that something horrible and unthinkable was imminent, would likely have been beyond the limits of me being able to live with myself and would have grievously violated how I view myself as a human being. That has got to be one hell of an albatross to wrap around one’s neck.
Under the circumstances, and in the all too human trait to rationalize one’s own behavior, is it not therefore understandable that he would be seduced into an environment where he would be provided with comfort, sympathy, shelter and even acclaim? Here we have a young man in his prime, an ROTC candidate on the path to becoming a warrior, and when the critical test presented itself, he proved incapable of rising to the call at that moment in time. None of us truly knows how we personally would react if given such a test. I can’t and won’t judge Mr. Goddard. I can only criticize him for the path he has chosen to take subsequent to his test, for it appears to me that he has chosen to disregard true introspection, reason and rationality, for those things that will superficially ease his damaged psyche. He’s trying to cope as best as he presently can and with the tools and the fortitude that is at his disposal. My hope is that as he grows and matures, he will come to realize that his current path will lead him to no good.
Contrast Mr. Goddard to Professor Liviu Librescu. Professor Librescu was a seventy-six year old VT engineering professor at the time. He was also a Holocaust survivor. There was a man, well beyond the normal age of retirement, teaching because of his love for his field, his love for his students and his love of the academy. There was a man who had also looked pure evil in the eye, suffered the horrors and the hardships, and had come out the other side intact. When the call came, he knew what needed to be done and he made the ultimate sacrifice defending what he held dear, buying precious time to allow all but one of his students to escape the horror alive. He proved to be a man of great honor and great courage. In Professor Librescu lives the highest ideals of the human spirit and his memory should provide inspiration for many generations to come.
Comments are closed.