Back in the day, a thug gunned down Lillian Potter’s husband. Like so many widows touched by tragedy, she launched a crusade to give her husband’s death meaning. Handgun Alert was born. My mother wouldn’t allow me to challenge her views. “So which family member has to die before I can debate gun control?” I asked. Hey, I was a teenager. But the point remains: why should tragedy place a survivor above reproach? ‘Cause I tell you what, I’m feeling extremely reproachful about Virginia Tech massacre survivor Colin Goddard’s rant The Last Pharoah: Mubarek or LaPierre? I advise those of you who consider criticism of a crime-driven crusader unforgivably insensitive to look away now . . .
According to the National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre, the situation in Egypt demonstrates that our nation’s Second Amendment is more important than ever, that “the presence of a firearm” in the hands of good people “makes us all safer” and that “the guys with the guns make the rules.” The problem is that LaPierre’s interpretation has nothing to do with reality.
What is so strikingly incongruous about LaPierre’s statement is the fact that none of the anti-Mubarak protesters appeared to be armed with guns. Contrary to LaPierre’s point, the only shooting that took place happened when members of Mubarak’s hated security force, dressed as civilians, used guns to kill unarmed protesters. In some cases, unarmed protesters were shot by snipers hidden safely in nearby buildings.
Goddard suffers from an idée fixe: fewer guns means less death. The facts must back up this core belief, no matter what. So the fact that the Egyptian government’s murderers were dressed as civilians and shooting from behind concealment proves that civilians don’t need a right to self-defense—because it wouldn’t have been effective anyway. Speaking of secret police, that is some seriously tortured logic.
I understand the liberal fascination with pacifist “people power.” No tanks for the memory. Ghandi rocks! Rosa Parks rules! It’s a good thing that the Egypt didn’t become a bloodbath. But the lack of firefights must be seen in its proper context.
First, as commentator Lance points out below, Egyptian citizens needed firearms to protect themselves from escaped convicts, released by Mubarek to create a desire for centralized authority. A lack of personal self-defense creates a power vacuum, beloved of dictators everywhere. And that ain’t no accident.
Second, Egyptians have been living under the yoke of dictatorship for decades. If the government hadn’t disarmed (or kept unarmed) the populace, perhaps there would have been something closer to real democracy in the country in the first place.
Maybe the Founding Fathers were right: the right to keep and bear arms is integral to a fruitful relationship between the governed and the governing.
In the race to destroy National Rifle Association chief Wayne LaPierre, Goddard doesn’t give that idea a look in. He considers the lack of mass executions (except at Egyptian jails) as proof positive that the NRA’s jefe’s undisguised love of an armed population is both paranoid and delusional.
It seems quite clear that LaPierre is as misguided and misinformed on the events in Egypt as he is about the true causes of gun violence here in this country. If instead of staging peaceful demonstrations, Egyptian protesters been armed with guns, it is highly likely that the Egyptian military, equipped with billions of dollars worth of weapons supplied free of charge by our own government, would have retaliated. That would have produced massive casualties among both the armed and unarmed Egyptians.
Other than causing the unnecessary deaths of innocent, unarmed protesters, guns played absolutely no meaningful role in what was perhaps the most powerful showing of peaceful and successful resistance to tyranny in recent history.
Kumbaya that! But what, pray tell, are the “true causes” of American gun violence that evade Mr. LaPierre? I imagine Wayne would say that human nature’s ultimately to blame for the harm that a man does to his fellow man, whether that’s via firearms or any other object. After that . . . nope. That’s probably it.
If Goddard disagrees with this simple proposition, I’d be interested to know why. Does he believe social or economic deprivation causes gun violence. Or should be blame “easy access to guns”? Or both? In this his personal experience staring evil in the face would be most illuminating. Or, perhaps, not. Anyway, back to America . . .
Despite the ludicrously hyperbolic political rhetoric heard too often in our country, we do not have a dictatorial government. We are not subject to the tyranny of a single ruler. However, citizens still have the ultimate power to change our elected representatives on a regular and orderly basis. As Americans, we have been peacefully exercising that right for over 200 years.
Straw man much? That said . . . define dictatorship. And what of the Alien and Sedition Acts? The Civil War? The riots in the 60’s? Or any of the other bloody events that have punctuated the American experiment since it began.
To say that Americans need to keep arsenals of weapons in order to oppose some future government that might become tyrannical is foolish at best. At worst, it is an affront to anyone that loves our country, our Constitution, and believes in its system of government.
So defending the Second Amendment is un-American. Who knew? And who knew that you could compare Wayne LaPierre to Hosni Mubarek with a straight face.
We should all take note of what the unarmed population of Egypt has achieved by standing up and speaking out against their oppression. Americans should finally take a stand against the oppressive influence of LaPierre and the NRA that has long ignored the real needs of individual gun owners in favor of the profit of gun manufacturers. Those who make and sell guns care only about getting more guns into more hands in more places no matter how dangerous it makes life for all of us.
I’m perplexed. What are the “real needs” of individual gun owners that the NRA’s ignoring? You know; other than free ammo. I have a sneaking suspicion that limiting access to firearms is not one of those ignored priorities.
But this much is true: in a free country we can all compete to represent each other. That’s as long as those represented agree. Which means they have the power to refuse. And I think I know where that comes from. I’m sorry Mr Goddard had to experience the worst of human nature, but it’s the realization that such evil exists that informs the NRA’s position.
Wayne LaPierre is a great american patriot who works very hard to protect our rights as gun owners, and we should all do our part by supporting the NRA and Wayne. If the NRA ever goes away we’re all screwed.
Colin Goddard is grave dancer just like the Brady wingnuts. He’s a pompous, posturing ass who needs to blame everyone except the lump of excrement who actually did the shooting. Why? Because it offends Goddard that he needed a nothing like Seung-Hui Cho to make Goddard a “somebody.” And it deeply offends Goddard that LaPierre is a major somebody who doesn’t appreciate Colin Goddard’s greatness. I’m sorry, RF, but I have no sympathy for Colin Goddard. He survived and he’s smugly making a career out of the death of 32 of his betters. I’m sure that John Kerry and Carolyn McCarthy will take him under their wings. They’re all cut from the same cloth.
Ralph, You’re intensity is over the top. You have no way of knowing if the 32 were Colin’s betters. And how could you possibly know if Colin resents the fact that Cho made him famous or that he resents La Pierre for being a real big shot.
As far as “pompous and posturing,” I haven’t gotten that impression from him. I’ve only seen a couple videos, but I think he, and the Bradys for that matter, pretty much mean just what they say.
Why is it so hard to accept the fact that most gun control advocates are what they claim to be, nothing more, nothing less.
I agree Wayne LaPierre from time to time say thing that make person go WTF . But he not alone ant gun Brady Campaign say alot thing make person have WTF thought. But one thing got respect about Wayne LaPierre he got hard job being head Nra guy go up against ant congreman ant gun media ant gun whitehouse that attacks any body who disagrees with them. I have seen rush people that want come in do his job . I have seen alot people say they can do his job better than he can but they well not put there money where there mouths are prove it. All question those hate NRA becuase they never give good reason for it. They never tell how they in prove thing with Nra just complain do nothing well NRA working hard keep gun rights. I well listen some one opion on NRA when they can prove they work hard passion on are gun right as Wayne LaPierre does for NRA.
He is right in that the guns were not needed in the protests. However, they did serve a critical function when Mubarek took away the police force and released everyone from the jails in an attempt to scare the people into choosing him or chaos. The people were forced to form neighborhood militias and checkpoints to keep the peace. I read a blog post by an Egyptian who was involved with helping to secure his neighborhood. All he had was a hatchet and a hunting knife. He said that they looked to the 3 men who actually guns for leadership and to form the backbone of their security.
The fact that the Egyptian protests were peaceful and effective is something to be thankful for. But it could have been different if the army sided with Mubarek, or if something else had gone differently.
Take back what had say Wayne LaPierre right on target in what had say there. The guy writen what had say is one those ant gun loons on left hate any thing ever thing NRA stand for.
What happened to Colin Goddard is horrible. He looked evil in the face and lived to tell the tale. The truth about that can’t be downplayed. He thinks he is doing the right thing to honor the deaths of those people at VT, but Ralph is right he is very pompous. The crazy rhetoric that spews from him and everyone else who is ridiculously out spoken at the Brady Campaign shows them for what they really are, ignorant people who use the violent deaths of others to further their cause.
Ditto to Ralph’s comments. Very well written.
ditto that
One word. Iran.
The unarmed protests in Egypt went so well because the army set up camp and told both sides to play nice. Had that not happened my guess is that the “police” would have racked up a much higher body count.
Egypt worked out because the Army refused to use force against the protesters. Many times the anti-gun folks argue that the government should have a “monopoly on violence”. However, this assumes the government will (and always will) use it for good. Even our own government has not used its power to inflict violence for good purposes. In the case of Egypt, the government lost its monopoly when the Army refused to support Mubarak. It tried to regain that by hiring thugs on horseback with whips but ultimately failed. Mubarak stepped down not just because of people shouting, but with the understanding that those shouting people might turn violent and he would have no defense against his own people.
Gandhi vs. Ho Chi Minh
You could not embarrass the French enough for them to set you free. Whatever your opinion may be of the Viet Minh, no amount of peaceful marches or hunger strikes was going to make France relinquish its colonies. Unless you take the paternalistic (i.e. racist) view that Vietnam (or Algeria) would have been better off remaining under the French, you have to concede that armed resistance was the only option.
So tell me again why “governments” should have a monopoly on deadly force?
Because you will make the wrong choices if left to your own devices. This is why WE the benevolent satraps of the left must design your choices so you make the choices we approve for you in advance.
This guy’s claim to fame is cowering on the ground?
And even now in other Arab countries the police responses are getting much more violent now that they’ve seen what happened in Egypt – are you SURE you still want The State to have the monopoly of force?
Seems to me that if the Egyptian people were armed to the same extent that the American people are they probably would have been able to set up some sort of democracy when they tossed their king out. The point is not that the protesters didn’t need guns to defend themselves and change their government. The point is that, had they been armed all along, they never would have had a leader like Mubarak in the first place.
What he said.
Comments are closed.