by Michael Grosso
I
have a question for Wayne LaPierre, the great spokesman and master strategist
for the National Rifle Association (NRA).
The question is in the form of a thought experiment. Imagine that you knew in advance that
some morally deranged man was going to buy an assault rifle (an AR-15) and
slaughter you and your entire family.
Now imagine that you also know in advance that if the NRA chooses to
banish the sale of such weapons, the deranged man would not murder you and your
family.
Would
you choose to banish the sale of the AR-15 and save your life and your family’s? Or would you, for the sake of
preserving the Second Amendment, just say no and sacrifice your life and your
family’s?
This
is only a thought experiment.
Answer, Yes or No?
I
don’t know how Wayne LaPierre would answer this question or if he would be
willing to engage in the thought experiment. I have a feeling he wouldn’t. It might make him feel uncomfortable. Maybe we can help clarify the options for
him.
If
he caved just to save his own life and his family’s life, he would betray NRA
policy. The misuse of assault
weapons is no argument for banishing them. The principle
of the Second Amendment must be respected. Arms, legs, heads blown off must never be invoked to derogate
from the Second Amendment. 90 or
so Americn souls are daily sacrificed to gun rights. So
get real. Wayne and his family
would have to be factored in with the daily quota of collateral victims.
The
response of Wayne LaPierre – the only response consistent with his entire
career as servant of the NRA and its religion of the gun – would have to be:
“No
– I will not support banishing assault weapons under any circumstances. I am therefore prepared to die and to
sacrifice my family for the Second Amendment!”
Being
forced into this inhuman position is morally grotesque. It is exactly the NRA’s stance: unbending
worship of the unqualified right to own deadly firearms.
Hey
Wayne, how about it? Yes or No?
