Friday, April 20, 2007
Our famous Constitution, about which many of us are generally so proud, enshrines -- along with the right to freedom of speech, press, religion and assembly -- the right to own guns. That's an apples and oranges list if there ever was one.
Mr. Plate ignores the right to self defense in order to distort. His apples and oranges list makes as much sense as this: The freedom to shout down anyone at anytime and anywhere, to burn flags, to kill unborn babies, to form a destructive mob -- the right to self defense.
The rest of his argument is not any better. He tells of a time he was held up at gunpoint in an alley:
Last month, I was robbed at 10 in the evening in the alley behind my home. As I was carrying groceries inside, a man with a gun approached me where my car was parked. The gun he carried featured one of those red-dot laser beams, which he pointed right at my head.
Because I'm anything but a James Bond type, I quickly complied with all of his requests. Perhaps because of my rapid response (it is called surrender), he chose not to shoot me; but he just as easily could have. What was to stop him?
Given the situation, I'm not arguing with Plate's actions in the alley. But he seems to suggest that immediate surrender is the proper response to threat of violence. This is a terrible message to convey. Getting fleeced one night in an alley to avoid a potentially deadly confrontation is one thing but to limit one's self defense options so as to be slaughtered like sheep in a situation such as the Virginia Tech tragedy is entirely different.