Rense.com



Moore On A Roll With Gun Control
By Bryan McGregor Hoover
bhoover@wecs.com
10-29-2

I just saw Michael Moore's Donahue guest appearance, and I'm confused. Is our problem guns, economic, or cultural? One thing was clear though, like so many sensible political positions, the pro gun rights lobby suffers from a lack of instant hero immediate gratification syndrome.
 
Moore's American violence message is that our system punishes rather than helps the poor; corporate America are the real crooks; politically, and culturally, we have a shoot first, ask questions later approach to conflict resolution; and all of the above lead to citizen gun violence. He says, solve the economic problems, and the gun violence will go away.
 
Absolutely. I buy it. Lock, stock, and barrel. I'm with you one hundred percent. Michael Moore for president.
 
Except, why was Moore's message emphatically thematic of gun control? How does disarming the American public solve our economic problems? I don't see the connection except the irony of advocating disarming innocent Americans of protection against the very elements of society he points to as the problem.
 
Moore advocates a run on our stagnant political leadership, but apparently thinks, in the mean time, it's a good idea to render ourselves vulnerable to the corporate American controlling class, and their government enforcers, the pillars of the very thing Moore points to as the root of our problems. Yeah Mike, we'll just lay down our arms, and politely ask the police not to break down our doors when Bush decides conscientious voters are a threat to national security.
 
Of course, Moore would deny he advocates banning guns. He thinks hunting guns are OK. But on the slippery slope that is inherent to all decidedly controversial issues, Moore's position is dubious enough to bear the scent of folly. Moore and "moderate" gun control advocates like him consistently miss the point:
 
The Right to Bear Arms is NOT a position on the politics of hunting, animal rights, living off the land, sportsmanship, male bonding, father/son adventures on the wild frontier. No Mike, it's not even a question of why fathers don't take their daughters hunting more often. IT'S ABOUT PROTECTION. It's about protection from criminals, and it's about protection from state tyranny.
 
Why is it we have so much trouble wrapping our heads around this very clear motivation for The Right to Bear Arms? It's right there in the constitution. The framers didn't sneak it in through the back door. They were very clear on the issue. Are we blind? Are we afraid to admit the truth? Is it contrary to our general inclinations towards peace, harmony? Do we simply have trouble facing the cold hard fact: the potential for tyranny is an inherent part of government, and no amount of wishful thinking will change that.
 
No one likes to go through life being reminded of the potential conflicts inherent in relationships. It's not healthy. Negativity breeds undesired self fulfilling prophecy. But pro gun lobbyists are not the ones doing the issue mongering here. Politicians, and misguided citizens created the gun control issue, incessantly stoke its flames, and then depict Right to Bear Arms advocates as paranoid anti-government fanatics when they protest in defense of our constitutional rights.
 
It's easy to jump on the band wagon in defense of innocent gun violence victims. Like so many paper patriots, do so and you're attributed with instant hero status. Who doesn't advocate refraining from killing innocent people? Answer that question and you'll have all the evidence you need in support of The Right to Bear Arms.
 
 
Right to Bear Arms Origins
 
http://www.wecs.com/moore.htm





MainPage
http://www.rense.com


This Site Served by TheHostPros