“At the risk of myself seeming a bit paranoid, I worry that some will misconstrue the message and the associated call to action. According to LaPierre, liberty lives in the Second Amendment; it is the one freedom that distinguishes America from all other nations. I surely hope that such hyperbole never becomes a battle cry for those few paranoid strangers with concealed weapons beneath their coats.” – James Alan Fox
This guy, along with Yvonne Abraham, are why I never even go to the website of that rag the Globe anymore. I got sick of their hatred of gun owners, and how they associate all crime with MA permit holders ( the most vetted people in the state) and not the thugs (none of whom lawfully own guns) in Dorchester, Roxbury, Brockton, Lawrence, etc.
Mr. Fox is pretty well eviscerated in the comments, for whatever good that will do. Mr. Fox has probably spent most of his life living in the cozy bubble of pseudo-intellectualism. I doubt that he gets out much and rubs elbows with the hoi polloi.
What is the point of Mr. Fox’s article?
To Drum up support for more gun control.
Just because I am paranoid doesn’t mean that they’re are not people out there who want to take away my God given right to defend myself.
Mr. Fox wants to get the casual reader to think “OMG there are paranoid gun nuts running around armed! We should do something about it (like take away their guns).”
There have to be a few few historical fact-based explanations for why certain states, say CA, MA, NY, NJ, and the City of Chicago have such distrust for even the idea of handguns in the possession of the common man or woman. The first that comes to mind is that these were the destinations of the largest recent (last 100 years) immigrations. Who trusts the great unwashed? The second is that these areas also had and have very large concentrations of major universities. Academia prides itself on a ‘liberal’ interest in a better more egalitarian society, but underlying that is their reality: Would you want handguns in the possession of all those Phd. candidates whose dissertations were not going to be accepted? In the hands of all those uniserf adjuncts laboring under the Class of tenured faculty? In the hands of those people who, after seven years of labor, were about to be told “No tenure for YOU!” That these states appear to also have the most powerful police unions might factor in. It is improbable that the attitudes about carry vary in a merely random way. In fact we can say that the most truly liberal states (in the 19th century J.S.Mill meaning) are those which have the least distrust of their average citizen’s ability to possess defensive tools without turning on their, uh, ‘betters.’
There is a much simpler explanation for Chicago. As pointed out by the Chicago Magazine the gangs are an integral part of the Chicago political machine. Their function is to keep certain ethnic/racial groups down and dependent so they will be reliable voters on Election Day. If the private citizens have guns then the power of the gangs to intimidate will decline and Machine will lose control.
The government having a monopoly on force ALWAYS leads towards tyranny. What about this is so difficult to understand?
don’t infringe on my right (2A) and i won’t infringe on yours (1st A)…..
“Gun control isn’t about guns, it’s about control”
I have to say that sometimes I have a problem with Mr. LaPierre’s rhetoric and view him as guilty of the same kind of visceral scare tactics as we often find in those who oppose the 2nd Amendment. I am no supporter of Obama, and I do suspect him of plotting some sort of Second Term assault on the Second Amendment if , God forbid, he gets re-elected.
However, Mr. La Pierre’s assertion that Obama will definitely abolish the Second Amendment flies in the face of the fact that it is very difficult to change the Constitution. It requires a two-thirds majority to pass in Congress and a three-fourths ratification by the 50 States.
So, for Mr. LaPierre to assert that if Obama is re-elected, removing the Second Amendment from the Constitution is a “done deal” just reeks of fear mongering aimed at OFWG’s (who donate a lot of money to the NRA).
I often read LaPierre’s stuff and come away with a bad feeling that the hysteria in his speeches and writings contributes to a negative view of gun owners to the non gun owner public. It is the non gun owning public we need to convince to join our point of view and stand firmly with us in support of the Second Amendment. This James Allen Fox person can go take a long walk off a short pier, but I hate that he finds LaPierre’s quotes so useful to his cause.
Good for you, Derry. The fact that La Pierre is good for gun rights and speaks for the NRA is a reflection of the kind of members you’ve got in the gun-owning public and the NRA. You armed intelligentsia guys are a pleasure compared to your average joe.
Thanks. The reason I like TTAG so much is that the discussion here is less hysterical and more thoughtful than other Pro-Second Amendment Sites I’ve read. I would guess that’s what keeps you checking and commenting on what is being said here, as well.
Truthfully, I also expect to get some flames over criticizing Wayne La Pierre, but so be it.
Comments are closed.