During last week's press conference, the NRA's executive vice president Wayne LaPierre suggested that government-provisioned armed guards in school were the only reasonable way of protecting children from gun violence. It all came off a little unhinged; just about the only organization of mostly adult men that's more dedicated to being around your children also starts with an N but ends in -AMBLA. It's disconcerting.
Nevertheless, if a dangerous idea was going to find support, it may as well be found with our national oracle of crank ideas, retiring congressman Ron Paul…
"While I certainly agree that more guns equals less crime and that private gun ownership prevents many shootings, I don't agree that conservatives and libertarians should view government legislation, especially at the federal level, as the solution to violence. Real change can happen only when we commit ourselves to rebuilding civil society in America, meaning a society based on family, religion, civic and social institutions, and peaceful cooperation through markets. We cannot reverse decades of moral and intellectual decline by snapping our fingers and passing laws."
Even Paul hates the NRA's idea! But of course, he announced his opposition in the most classically Paulite manner: it's principled and insightful and — unless you happen to already agree with him — a touch crazy.
He's right about one thing: the NRA cares more about the fate of gun manufacturers than it does about libertarian ideals, otherwise it wouldn't be so keen to put more guns in the hands of government agents. As for everything else? It's about what you'd expect muskets constitutionalist who came of age when front-loading muskets were the arms being sanctioned by the 2nd Amendment.
Photo by Andrew Burton/Getty Images News/Getty Images
Tags: Guns, NRA, Ron Paul