LaPierre versus Paul: Realism versus Delusion


Two Armed GuardsLike his typical remarks on foreign policy (remember those Republican primary debates?), Ron Paul’s response to Wayne LaPierre shows what happens when praiseworthy ideals are wedded to a weak grasp of reality.

Though common grace (God’s pervasive positive influence on even those who will never become Christians) does seem (in combination with, or possibly expressed through, “traditional values” social conditioning) to guarantee that most people in most places most of the time will be mostly decent, mostly well-meaning, more good than evil, events like those in Newtown make clear that, as LaPierre says, there are “genuine monsters” among us. Realistically, this will always be the case. Expecting development of civil society to fix the problem is, well, “crazy talk.”

Besides, the issue of current debate is not how to reduce the number of monsters over the very long term but how to reduce right now the likelihood they will successfully carry out their evil intentions. Since, thanks to common grace, monsters are always in the minority, restricting access of the majority to firearms (or to some arbitrary class of them) is no way to solve the problem, though I’m sure it’s a move rapists, muggers, and home invaders would applaud (as would all the monsters among us who are either physically strong or run in packs).

Though now hardly seems the time for another costly federal program, LaPierre is correct to identify providing armed security on campuses as a more worthy expenditure of federal funds than other expenditures already in place. Since maintaining law and order is one of the legitimate functions of government, I’d say cutting elsewhere to fund the LaPierre plan is worth considering.

While we’re at it, let’s also consider making firearms safety and marksmanship training mandatory components of all teaching credential programs. We could easily make room for these courses by removing some of the PC indoctrination classes typically included in such programs.


LaPierre’s remarks follow introduction.Back.


If this post is a review, it may also appear, less nicely formatted and typically abridged, on such other sites as Amazon and GoodReads. If this post has odd gaps in it, this probably means some ads have failed to display. If you miss the ads, try reloading the page. Otherwise, just enjoy their unexpected absence.

Like this site? Help pay my expenses: Buy me stuff! | Do I mention a book or other product you’d like to buy? Check prices on Amazon.com. | Protected by Copyscape Plagiarism Checker - Do not copy content from this page.

All Pious Eye™: Seeing by the True Light™ content © 2005– by David M. Hodges, unless otherwise noted. Unauthorized Reproduction Prohibited. Sharing Encouraged. Syndication Enabled.


If you’d like to discuss this post or related issues, please leave a comment below (if comments are enabled) or contact me.


About Pious Eye (David M. Hodges)

I am the person who is Pious Eye: David M. Hodges. Thank you for reading!
This entry was posted in In The News and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to LaPierre versus Paul: Realism versus Delusion

  1. Pingback: Dalai Lamas in Hell? Continuing A Conversation | Pious Eye (David M. Hodges)'s Web Site

  2. Re: “Though common grace (God’s pervasive positive influence on even those who will never become Christians) does seem (in combination with, or possibly expressed through, “traditional values” social conditioning) to guarantee that most people in most places most of the time will be mostly decent, mostly well-meaning, more good than evil….”

    My construal of “common grace” back in 2012, as it happens, shared with Ron Paul’s thinking the characteristic of being insufficiently well-grounded in reality (though my parenthetical on “social conditioning” was on target, albeit too tentative):

So, what say you?