On this
website a writer argues, remarkably, that if we allow the government to
abridge the rights guaranteed under the second amendment, they will feel
free to take away the rights guaranteed under any of the other amendments.
Okay. Would this person be amenable to the argument that if we allow
the police to tap our phones, they will then feel free to plant hidden
cameras and microphones in our bedrooms? If we allow the government to
ban pornography, will they soon come after our editorials? If you let
your child have a sip of beer, will he then feel free to do drugs?
April 12, 2009
From the same
hilarious pro-gun website: To deny a human the right to defend him-
or herself from any threat is the most grievous crime against humanity that I
can think of. Human enslavement, you say? Genocide? Well, that kind of thing
can't happen to an armed populace. Hitler's holocaust, together with a world
war, began by disarming the German people. So to own a gun for the purpose of
defense is one of the most universal and basic human rights - period.
That's pretty amazing.
What's even more amazing is that after years and years of solid
majorities favoring some form of gun control, the NRA has been able to
stymie every effort to do it.
Mr. Wong told the man that he had probably shot
10,000 rounds in about a year’s time. “He was pleasant,” the man recalled.
“He was courteous. You would never suspect that he would pose a threat to
anyone.” NY Times, April 11, 2009
What more information do you
need? The man who didn't want his name used happened to be using the
shooting range next to Jiverly A. Wong one day. He noticed that Wong
was practicing the art of firing his hand gun rapidly and accurately.
This is America, where "you would never suspect" that someone practicing
using a handgun would pose a threat to somebody. After all, Mr.
Wong had a permit.
The NRA would probably respond, as they have in the
past, that if only someone else in the room had had a gun, Mr. Wong would
have been stopped. Okay-- let's say someone else in the room had a
pistol strapped to his leg. Mr. Wong fired 98 shots and killed most of
his victims in the first 60 seconds. So this potential hero is sitting
in the classroom working on his forms and a stranger walks in. The
stranger pulls out his pistols and starts firing, quickly, randomly.
Let's say we're really lucky and our hero isn't one of the first ones hit.
Let's say we're even luckier and he doesn't happen to be directly in front
of the shooter. The potential hero, quick as he can, gets to his feet
and pulls out his own heroic tool. Is he going to stop Mr. Wong with
an accurate shot, under terrifying circumstances, before the damage is done?
Maybe the hero gets lucky and gets his gun out before he is himself hit,
and maybe he draws it without drawing Mr. Wong's attention, and maybe he
isn't too nervous and excited and is able to aim and keep his hand steady
and get off an accurate shot or two. Even under the best of
circumstances, several people will already be dead. And anyone who has
seen real footage of people engaged in a gun battle know that it is very
difficult to shoot calmly, accurately, under those circumstances.
I wonder
if the families of Mr. Wong's victims consider themselves martyrs to the
second amendment. They died so Americans can be free to own guns
without the slightest impediment.
All Contents Copyright
© Bill Van Dyk
2009 All Rights Reserved
Font: Verdana