Saturday, June 25, 2016

In Gun We Trust





I have a question for Wayne LaPierre, the great spokesman and master strategist for the National Rifle Association (NRA).  The question is in the form of a thought experiment.  Imagine that you knew in advance that some morally deranged man was going to buy an assault rifle (an AR-15) and slaughter you and your entire family.  Now imagine that you also know in advance that if the NRA chooses to banish the sale of such weapons, the deranged man would not murder you and your family.

Would you choose to banish the sale of the AR-15 and save your life and your family’s?  Or would you, for the sake of preserving the Second Amendment, just say no and sacrifice your life and your family’s?

This is only a thought experiment.  Answer, Yes or No? 

I don’t know how Wayne LaPierre would answer this question or if he would be willing to engage in the thought experiment.   I have a feeling he wouldn’t.  It might make him feel uncomfortable.  Maybe we can help clarify the options for him.   

If he caved just to save his own life and his family’s life, he would betray NRA policy.  The misuse of assault weapons is no argument for banishing them.   The principle of the Second Amendment must be respected.  Arms, legs, heads blown off must never be invoked to derogate from the Second Amendment.  90 or so Americn souls are daily sacrificed to  gun rights.  So get real.  Wayne and his family would have to be factored in with the daily quota of collateral victims.     

The response of Wayne LaPierre – the only response consistent with his entire career as servant of the NRA and its religion of the gun – would have to be:

“No – I will not support banishing assault weapons under any circumstances.  I am therefore prepared to die and to sacrifice my family for the Second Amendment!”

Being forced into this inhuman position is morally grotesque.  It is exactly the NRA’s stance: unbending worship of the unqualified right to own deadly firearms.

Hey Wayne, how about it?  Yes or No?









2 comments:

Fred Emmer said...

It seems to me the constraints on your thought experiment are inherently uncharitable to the issue. As a practical matter, the threat you propose is the raison d'etre for the existence of the second amendment in the first place. So if perfect knowledge of the threat was available, deadly force could be at the ready to protect innocent life.

Moreover, I see no principal difference between the choice you're offering Pierre and the choice we offered our soldiers on D-Day. Do we demand that young men be willing to die in order to protect the ideas in our Constitutional document? We do.

Moreover, you're own arguement that the conquest of culture by materialists is a totalitarian victory is absolutely persuasive to me.

The 2nd amendment is the ultimate inoculation to protect individuals from the threat of tyranny and what greater tyranny could there be than the threat of a Declaration of non-existence of the subjective self by a political majority?

How can persons have rights when the idea of an ontologically real personal self is ridiculous folklore, a mere superstition?

You would prefer that the only people who can own guns are those guys?

Anonymous said...

This is not a threat to gun rights. It's a question about how far people are willing to defend the right to own assault weapons designed for war even if it meant sacrificing their lives and their family's lives.

Older Blog Entries