Jingo-tastic!

Gun control has been a hot topic of late, and the Oklahoman has run loads of letters that parrot standard far-right talking points. These typically say things like 'We must be vigilant lest liberal take away our guns!'-- a talking point designed to generate support (and often donations) out of fear-- or 'Guns don't kill people-- godless liberals do!' and so on.

But in terms of truly mind-boggling epic defenses of gun freedom, it's hard to beat the letter from Dick Webber of Edmond. First, we get a history lesson: The colonists only won the Revolutionary War because we had armed citizens (who happened to have better guns than the British). So, we get it: Hooray for armed citizens! And then, we get this line:

Today, America faces an enemy that vows to impose its own culture and control, an enemy with an Islamic fundamentalist and terrorist character. This enemy is training around the world to attack America and its interests. The histories of this nation and the world teach us that we have a choice: Surrender or fight to preserve our freedom.

Um. OK. This is the sort of propagandistic line we have been fed for the last decade or so, and it makes less and less sense as time goes on. One can see how little sense it makes if we simply follow up on Mr. Webber's two options: supposing we picked the first option, who would we surrender to?

No, really. If you are going to talk about this "enemy" that is threatening us, who is it? Saying "Islamic fundamentalists" is hardly an answer. Who are they? Where are they? Who is their leader? What is their army like? If you can't answer these questions, then talk of an "enemy" really just makes you sound, well, paranoid. Which, I guess, is the point.

It's hardly surprising that Mr. Webber is brainwashed, and we can bet good money that most of his information about the world comes from Fox News, AM talk radio, and the Oklahoman. But even with all that misinformation, it's difficult to imagine this sort of logical leap:

The Minutemen give us the example of how a free people, personally armed and expert with their own weapons, can prevail. National policy should be to encourage citizens to own weapons for self-defense. Countries such as Switzerland already do this. America is no longer immune or safe from internal or external attacks. Those who attempt to inhibit or discourage the right of a private citizen to own guns should cause us to ask this: “On whose side are you?”

Wow. So he is advocating greater gun ownership because of Islamic fundamentalists?? Think about that for a minute. Earlier, he lamented that "colonial militia units were provided neither arms nor uniforms. They had to equip themselves." Assuming that's true, then one can see where having armed citizens would be a bonus. However, I'm sure Mr. Webber is aware that we currently have a very well-funded (and thus armed) army. Right? So well-funded, in fact, that it is reasonable to say that in both absolute and relative terms, it's the most powerful military the world has ever seen. If this is the case, then it is hard to argue that we also need to have a slew of armed ordinary citizens. Especially when there is no real enemy to speak of.

Normal newspapers would never run letters like Mr. Webber's. It is jingoistc, filled with right-wing paranoia, and has an illogical conclusion. But because it puts forward a pro-Second Amendment message, the Oklahoman saw fit to run it. Pathetic.