American Jihad

Gun Ownership is a Cherished and Protected Freedom

Now that we have that out of the way, it would be nice to explore  an aspect of the American response to the idea that there are limitations to such a  freedom.

The much reviled Taliban is an outgrowth of the US sponsored and funded Mujahideen who fought the Soviets during their failed Afghanistan invasion.  Osama bin Laden, mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, supported the Taliban and was himself a partial invention of the US.  He served us well in our proxy fight against the Soviets.

Mujahideen

Perhaps the Taliban are best known for their extremely rigid ideology as well as their very strict interpretation of both Islam and more importantly, Sharia law, the moral code of Islam.  The effect of the Taliban’s enforcement has been to destroy cultural plurality.  There can be but one position and dissent is neither welcome nor tolerated.  It is extremely harsh fundamentalist doctrine.

There is a very marked similarity in the post-Newtown and Webster debates from what can be referred to as the Hard-Core Gun Lobby(HCGL).  The notion that any discussion on the issue, much less action,  is democratic or American apostasy is forcefully made.  In the fashion of the Taliban no debate is possible because no change can be sanctioned.  It’s just that simple.

A key point:  I am not suggesting that ardent gun rights proponents are terrorists, un-American, or supporters of either Bin Laden or the Taliban.  I am suggesting that their zeal has led them down the road of rigid fundamentalism to adopt an extreme approach that is at odds with our democratic system of government where moderation, flexibility, accommodation and creativity allow for problem-solving, even on a national scale.

Professionally, the Webster killings were a tragedy.  Newtown, however, was a national holocaust.  The HCGL response has been first, to seek to delay public discussion, and second, to suggest that more guns in more places is the answer.  The public has rightly balked at such a bizarre position, roughly analogous to public be-headings and limb amputations.

Cooler heads correctly point out that this is a complicated problem because it involves several aspects of liberty, mental health, the Constitution and firearm liability.

But a nation that is immobilized by fundamentalist zeal of Talibanic proportions as innocent children are murdered is, in fact, becoming unworthy of the descriptor of “constitutional democracy.”

We speak scathingly of Taliban fundamentalism and send our soldiers to die defending the concept of rational liberty while it withers in front of us as our children lay lifeless.

 

10 Comments

  • Glenn says:

    The idea recently proposed that we should place shotguns in a locked cabinet in schools for use by trained teachers and staff caused me to envision the following:

    A person with a knife walks into a school, places the knife to the throat of the principal and simply says “open the cabinet or else.” Instant mass killing weapon no background, no ID.
    Come on man…………..

  • Eric Lamar says:

    More guns is probably not the solution. Any suggestion of moderation is seen as a move to ban every weapon. The language, stridency and tone of the HCGL is right from the taliban.

  • Dennis says:

    Right to Life (in an elementary school and a uterus)

    The HCGL can be compared to the zealots who defend abortion. They claim if restrictions are imposed on any type of abortion, that is a slippery slope, and the way is being paved for a reversal of Rowe v Wade. The HCGL claims if assault weapons are banned, the logical next step would be to ban all firearms. What is ironic here is the fact that the real national tragedy is ignored because if the mothers of the fallen children of Newtown had chosen to abort them about 6 or 7 years ago, they would be making a “choice” and not committing murder. So you see Eric, zealotry is alive and well on all sides of the political spectrum, and many innocents are killed every day (with surgical instruments and guns).

  • Eric Lamar says:

    D-

    Whatever the so called merits of your position, you can’t deny that you just equated a woman engaging in a lawful, though much restricted act, with the murder of 20 children. (How cold-blooded.) You live in a harsh and black/white world. If abortion was outlawed it would still occur, though perhaps less so, but with many more fatalities. In my post I never mentioned banning anything yet you trot out the abortion example as a banning example because you have no where else to go. Abortion has been significantly restricted. Why not try the same with weapons capable of mass murder? Your talibanic extremism leaves you no room to maneuver.

  • Dennis says:

    I beleive life begins at conception and that while abortion is legal in this country, abortion is morally and ethically wrong(see Hippocratic Oath). And BTW, what country have you been living in the past decade? Abortion has been significantly restricted?!? WTF?? The US averages well over a million abortions per year and these numbers are underreported because the State of California refuses to release their abortion information to the CDC. Its sad that you have nothing to fall back on but resort to making things up to support your argument.

  • Eric Lamar says:

    I support your right to believe that life begins whenever but that is not what we were talking about, thus even more evidence that you cannot engage on the subject at hand: all you can do is launch personal attacks or completely change the subject which is sure evidence that you are in a moral corner, the oft outcome of the true believer.

  • Blair H. Ghent says:

    With so many guns already out there, isn’t gun control kind of out the window. But lets start somewhere, assault rifles, clips of stupid amounts of rounds, longer and more indepth back ground ckecks is a start.doctors and counsilors need to step up thier efforts and be held accountable when they screw up. And yes arm somebody in our schools besides crazy people. It can be done.

    Thank You Eric

  • Robert K says:

    Eric,

    Any correlation between the DC Gun Laws that permit ownership (The District of Columbia prohibits carrying firearms, openly or concealed. (DC Code Ann. § 22-4504(a).) However, if you obtain a valid registration for your weapon, you may keep a firearm in your home, place of business, or for specified recreational purposes.) and the decrease in murder rate for 2013?

Leave a Reply to Eric Lamar Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *