Apparently, after another tragic shooting that could not have been prevented by the “common sense gun laws” being proposed by the Progressive left, they have begun to sense this line by itself is not being bought by most of America. Now with terrorism back on the front pages, the left has sized upon a new strategy to gin up support for stricter gun laws, equating gun rights advocates with terrorists. This comparisons are intellectually dishonest, not to mention absurd. In some cases, the ideas may actually be dangerous.
A recent front page of the NY Daily News pictured among undisputed terrorists, NRA leader Wayne LaPierre. By extension, the NRA could be considered a terrorist organization. The Daily News must have a very different definition of terrorism than the rest of us. Terrorism is an effort to use violence to intimidate the population with aims toward achieving some political goal. Sorry, buy exactly what acts of violence do the editors and staff of the Daily News allege LaPierre and the NRA have committed? Maybe if they could cite one, they might have some credibility. They can’t because their assertion is not only wrong, but ridiculous.
If you think that the New York Daily News has a lock on tragically foolish ideas concerning gun violence, sadly you’d be wrong. There is a piece published on IrishCentral.com on Dec 4 by Cahir O’Doherty wrote a piece entitled: Irish-style peace process needed for gun situation in America. The title says it all.
For background, the IRA’s violent campaign against British rule in Northern Ireland known as “the troubles” was in full swing in the 1990’s when a cease fire was being brokered with the help of U.S. Senator George Mitchell. The efforts to achieve a cease fire in Northern Ireland saw numerous setbacks but also advances. Finally, after the (completely unrelated) 9-11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington D.C., IRA leaders saw an opportunity for settlement and agreed to decommission their arms.
From the article:
“In America the time for a temporary cessation of hostilities in pursuit of peace may also have arrived. The nation clearly needs a peace process of some kind – and perhaps a respected outside mediator in the mold of Senator George Mitchell – to address the exploding crisis over guns.”
A cessation of hostilities? The Troubles were hostilities, there were definite objectives being pursued with by both sides. When both sides reached a compromise that contributed towards their respective positions, the hostilities ended. What are the objectives of a mentally ill person who shoots up a school or movie theater? What is the common ground that a mass murderer shares with the rest of society that can be negotiated? One cannot negotiate with someone acting out of rage and without reason.
Perhaps Mr. O’Doherty sees the NRA as one of the sides engaged in hostilities. He seems to be casting the NRA in the role of the IRA in his analogy. Any analogy between the IRA and the NRA is absurd on its face, but let’s play along for a moment with that notion. The IRA was an organization, whose genesis came from an actual military organization– the Irish Republican Army, hence the name. They used violence to further their political goals of Irish nationalism. The NRA is not an army, it’s an association of like-minded American citizens interested in preserving their second amendment rights, rights that virtually every American already has. They fight for to maintain these rights through exclusively peaceful means. The right to bear arms was won over 200 years ago.
Again from the article:
“Outside mediators can see the path not taken and the forgotten angle, they can push past all the over familiar gripes and discover new ground. They were essential to the success of the Irish peace process, so why not here?
Is it wrong to suggest that America needs a peace process when there have been 73 different school shootings since the Newtown schoolchildren massacre? San Bernardino and God knows what else lies ahead.”
One wonders what the author means by “familiar gripes” as pertaining to gun violence. Adam Lanza, who perpetrated the above mentioned Newtown school shooting was not part of some bigger organization, not the NRA, not the IRA, not anybody. He was not a ‘soldier’ fighting for some cause in common with the others who committed school shootings. Many of those other shootings were part of gang and/or drug violence. Just what sort of peace accord do we reach with common criminals, save sending them to prison in exchange for their not menacing society while there?
Some who carry out mass shootings such as those in Paris and San Bernardino are members or affiliates of a terrorist organization with definable political and societal objectives, namely the complete domination of every human being on earth. Cahir O’Doherty somehow does not seem to see them as one of the parties to be engaged in his proposed peace process. Instead he maintains the ridiculous notion that NRA is somehow directing or is otherwise a driving factor behind the recent rash of shooting committed by them mentally ill, common criminals, and terrorists. He tries, stunningly, to equate the NRA with the IRA, and suppose that if someone could just make a deal with Wayne LaPierre, guns en-masse could be decommissioned and the mass shootings would stop.
The anti-gun faction of the far left is actively trying to dupe the American people into conflating terrorists and mass-murders with pro-gun activists. The NRA is not ISIS or the IRA. Wayne LaPierre is not a terrorist mastermind, directing school and other mass shootings. To even suggest so is irresponsible, not to mention defamatory. Unlike in Northern Ireland, there are no two sides that if they could just reach some sort of accord, could end the violence. Law abiding gun-owners are not the problem, they are not one of the sides engaged in the “hostilities” being mentioned. The cause of ending gun violence is not served by demonizing those who support the second amendment.