Brad Harrington and I are given valuable space to tell
readers what we think. The first paragraph of his May 6 column discounts the value
of differing views in a free society. He says my views “simply aren’t worth the
powder to blow them apart.”
Perhaps Brad would be happier in a society that allowed only
one view. The willingness of the newspaper to make certain differing views are
shared is of incalculable value. Metaphorically, this is the paper on which the
1st Amendment was written. It is a sacred opportunity the Wyoming
Tribune-Eagle gives columnists of differing viewpoints, conservative and
liberal, one not to be denigrated simply because you don’t agree with someone.
His column open with centuries-old quotes. This one was from
Eldridge Gerry as though what Mr. Gerry said back then are dispositive of the complex
debates of the 21st century. Mr. Gerry spoke on the heels of the
Revolutionary War. In the context of the times, he had cause to be concerned
that if a government sought to take away the right of the people, it would
first “destroy the militia.”
Interesting history, though an irrelevant diversion. The 2nd
Amendment protects the rights of a “well-regulated militia” to own guns.
Well-regulated militias are not shooting up schools.
Not sure what to call people with extreme views on guns. I
realize “gun nuts” is offensive. However, “gun enthusiasts” defines millions of
Americans who don’t share the belief that the 2nd Amendment is a
roadblock to reasonable regulation. I will use the term “gun extremists.”
Gun extremists, like Mr. Harrington, realize arguments
against all regulation are bankrupt. Instead of meeting ideas with ideas, they
resort to personal attacks, name calling and threats. Their other strategy, displayed
by Mr. Harrington is to turn the debate into something it is not.
The column I wrote that angered my opinion-page colleague,
suggested the University acted reasonably in enacting a policy against fire
arms on the campus. Brad Harrington and other gun extremists would have made a
different choice. However, neither has the responsibility for the safety of
students which sets on the shoulder of UW board members.
Mr. Harrington’s vitriolic column mentions the UW regulation
once. He called it inane, meaning silly or stupid. But Mr. Harrington wasn’t
interested in talking about the regulation. He was interested in attacking
someone with views that differ from his.
That is what gun extremists do. That’s okay. The purpose I
write each week is to let the righties know they do not have a monopoly on
thinking even in conservative Wyoming. Mr. Harrington’s attacks were
milquetoast compared to the slander and threats gun extremists put those
Parkland school kids through. That is how far they will go to avoid a genuine
dialogue.
The Harrington column careened into a never-neverland. He
asserted that banjos, microwaves, socks, frying pans, fireplace pokers, pickle
jars and dumbbells, even loaves of pumpernickel bread might be used to kill
people. The point? “Why worry about gun safety when there are so many ways to
kill a fellow human being.”
People like him and the others can’t hold serve forever. The
people, including NRA members have seen enough. More than half of all NRA
owners believe there should be background checks even at gun shows. Among the
NRA’s Republican members, by far their most sizeable block, large majorities
are disturbed by the NRA insistence that seriously mentally ill people be able
to buy guns. How can anyone believe someone placed on a no-fly list because
they pose a terrorism risk, should own a gun?
For decades, they prohibited the Centers for Disease Control
to collect data on gun deaths because they knew the results would expose their
inane arguments.
Gun extremists won’t expose themselves to a legitimate debate
over these and other ideas that could make gun ownership safer and less
threatening to our children, spouses, people at risk to take their own lives
and others.
It will only get worse as Oliver North becomes NRA
president.
No comments:
Post a Comment