By Wayne LaPierre
Recently, demanding a harsh new federal ban on semi-automatic firearms, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell evoked the defining argument of the gun-ban movement—their twisted confusion between good and evil.
“It’s nuts for ordinary citizens to go out and buy assault weapons. Assault weapons are difficult to operate, they jam easily. If you want a gun to protect your home, it’s the last thing you should have. . . . If you have an assault weapon to protect your house, you’re crazy . . . they’re not very effective.”
So much for possession of a firearm on the side of good. What about evil?
In the hands of criminals, Rendell said, “Assault weapons only have one purpose. . . . They fire at short range; they put out a ton of fire at one time; and they are very powerful. . . .There’s no purpose for these guns but to kill or maim.”
Rendell’s convoluted notion of good and evil is the very core of why the gun ban movement defies common sense. It rejects the most important instinct of humanity—self-preservation against evil.
Human beings have a hard-wired program for self-protection; for fighting back; for safeguarding their homes, families and communities. As Americans, that’s why we preserve armed self-defense as part of our Second Amendment protections.
Rendell’s rant was amplified by ABC’s 20/20 special, “If Only I Had a Gun”—a shameless hit-job, totally embracing the gun-ban belief system that armed self-defense in the face of evil—a mass murderer in a public
That same embrace of evil over good was pressed home by an aggressively pacifist media on an international scale with coverage of Somali piracy and terrorism on the high seas.
In the past year alone, Somali pirates, heavily armed with full-automatic firearms and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), have attacked over 100 commercial vessels and extracted tribute of over $100 million. In an April 10 puff-piece, The New York Times called the pirates “professional,” quoting an “expert” saying the pirates have “a business model that has proven very effective for them.”
There is a single reason the “business model” works. It is the same reason “gun control” provides an overwhelming advantage to armed criminals. Their unarmed victims can’t fight back.
As most Americans proudly know, the pirate “business model” was wrecked when the high-seas thugs attempted to capture an American-flagged ship, the Maersk Alabama—the first U.S. vessel seized in an act
of piracy since 1801.
The American crew valiantly fought back and maintained control of their ship. U.S. Navy SEAL snipers aboard the destroyer USS Brainbridge killed three Somali pirates as one was about to murder the ship’s captain who had bravely traded his freedom for the safety of his crew.
Even using deadly force to save Capt. Richard Phillips was attacked as a provocation. The Christian Science Monitor quoted a maritime expert: “We fear that this escalation spiral, which we’ve seen in the past few months, will push pirates into a readiness to shoot.”
Most importantly, the Maersk Alabama incident sparked a controversy over something that should be a no-brainer—arming crews.
On the side of reason at a recent Senate hearing was Capt. Phillips, who advocated handing out arms to specially trained officers in times of pirate assault.
Also coming out four-square on the side of using armed guards was Gen. David Petraeus, who now heads the U.S. Central Command, that included military operations in Africa. . . .
The gun-ban crowd would impose a tyrannical doctrine that goes against every human instinct for survival. That policy guarantees not free individuals choosing self-defense against evil, but the triumph of evil over disarmed victims.