Monday, May 22, 2017


The rabid second amendment advocates turned to belittling and ridiculing any member of the Tech victims’ families who disagrees with them on keeping weapons out of the hands of those who are a danger to themselves and others.

Colin Goddard, and his work for the Brady Campaign, has received some harsh, off-the-wall criticism.  One gun rights advocacy blog has been especially vicious. The author labels Goddard a medieval alchemist, turning the tragedy into “gold.”  In other words, he is accusing Colin of profiting from the sufferings of others.

The blog, instead of examining the constitutional arguments of the second amendment, engages in immature name-calling. For example, the blogger writes, “… Goddard has managed to transmute the lead of four bullets shot into his body at Virginia Tech, into the gold of a paid position on the Brady Campaign’s … staff.” Such words are indicative of an individual who relies on emotion rather than thought. In fact, the blog’s author is telling much more about himself than those he criticizes. I would argue that to engage in such immature rhetoric against the victims of violent crimes is the sign of a disturbed individual. The blog’s argument that Colin Goddard is becoming rich because he works for the Brady Campaign is nonsense.

If Colin Goddard wanted to make money off that tragedy he would work for the National Rifle Association (NRA). The NRA has money to burn and uses its wealth, power, and influence to buy one politician after another. The NRA is rolling in cash, and has not hesitated to exploit school shootings for its own purposes by calling for more people to own guns.

The author of the blog, who is wheelchair-bound due to an automobile accident, is doing his own exploiting. He uses his personal tragedy to gain sympathy by posting that fact on his blog. Readers of the blog do not need to know whether the blogger can walk or not—that is immaterial to the right to own a gun. We are all sorry about the young man’s tragedy and would do anything we could to give him back the ability to walk, but to exploit his condition to gain sympathy is disappointing. Furthermore, all the rights granted U.S. citizens in the Constitution have some limitations. The right to freedom of speech does not extend to libel, slander or profanity. The right to own a gun should not be extended to those who are a danger to themselves or others.

It is troubling that someone would stir a cauldron of medieval hatred, paranoia, and self-pity in order to defame a young man who is walking around with bullets in him, bullets that could move at any time and cause potentially serious damage. (To be continued)

No comments: