Skip to main content
Report this ad

See also:

Pratt's position on 2nd Amd and politicians' fear is only morally defensible one

And a hint that should be heeded--closely
Photo © Oleg Volk. All rights reserved. Used with permission.

As National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea noted Friday, rabidly anti-gun Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) wants Gun Owners of America Executive Director Larry Pratt "investigated," for remarks Pratt made in an interview for still another anti-gun hit piece in Rolling Stone magazine. According to an article in The Hill, Maloney is especially worried about a passage that begins as follows:

The Second Amendment is not for hunting, it’s not even for self-defense,” Pratt explained in his Leadership Institute talk. Rather, it is “for restraining tyrannical tendencies in government … Especially those in the liberal, tyrannical end of the spectrum.

A fundraising email from former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords' (D-AZ) virulently anti-gun group, "Americans for Responsible Solutions," focused its umbrage on a later portion of the same passage (emphasis in ARS email):

A Congresswoman from New York said she was afraid that a member of the Gun Owners of America, a group led by a man named Larry Pratt, would want to shoot her for wanting to strengthen gun laws, according to Rolling Stone.

In response, Pratt said that "he's glad it's in the back of their minds" that elected officials fear gun violence from activists. "Hopefully they'll behave."

Hmm . . . pretty innocuous, and much in line with sentiments expressed in this column: (which also drew the ire of anti-gun groups, but, to my knowledge, no calls for a criminal "investigation").

The common theme here is that Feinstein, Waxman and others seem to have identified .50 caliber rifles as a personal threat to their own lives.

This is a good thing. Those who take it upon themselves to write the laws by which the rest of us must live should fear the wrath of the people they seek to govern. For the nation to be truly free, those who seek to exceed the limits on their power imposed by the Constitution must be made to live in mortal terror of the consequences.

Actually, that's kind of a theme in this column. And, as stated in the title, it's the only morally defensible position. If, after all, government officials do not fear the wrath of an armed citizenry, the deterrent effect provided by the Constitutional guarantee of the people's ability to deny a "government monopoly on force" has failed. If the government insists on ignoring both the Constitutionally imposed limits on its power, and disregarding armed citizens' ability to enforce those limits, the only option remaining is for we the people to actively refresh the tree of liberty.

Gun rights advocates, in our abhorrence for unnecessary violence, fervently hope power hungry officials' fear of the armed citizenry makes that violence unnecessary. Why do those who claim to be motivated by a desire to end "gun violence" wish for deterrence to fail, and for violence to thus become the only alternative to abject submission to tyranny?


If you're a regular St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner reader and believe it provides news and perspectives you won't find in the mainstream press, please subscribe to this column and help spread the word by sharing links, promoting it on social media like Facebook (Kurt Hofmann) and Twitter (@45superman), and telling your like-minded friends about it. Also watch for Kurt's articles for Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.

Report this ad