Bob Herbert's "A Threat We Can't Ignore"

Bob Herbert has written another op-ed for the New York Times, this one entitled A Threat We Can't Ignore. The last time Mr. Herbert's writing caught our attention was in April. In that piece, he basically provided a list of the gun damage that occurs each year. He said the solution is gun control and that as responsible citizens we're remiss in allowing the gun enthusiasts to get away with what they're doing. This time his message is basically the same thing as far as the solution goes, but as to the problem, he highlights the right-wing rhetoric that has not only polarized the debate like never before but also acted as the catalyst for several high-profile shootings this year.

Even with the murders that have already occurred, Americans are not paying enough attention to the frightening connection between the right-wing hate-mongers who continue to slither among us and the gun crazies who believe a well-aimed bullet is the ticket to all their dreams.

I hope I’m wrong, but I can’t help feeling as if the murder at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington and the assassination of the abortion doctor in Wichita, Kan., and the slaying of three police officers in Pittsburgh — all of them right-wing, hate-driven attacks — were just the beginning and that worse is to come.

As if the wackos weren’t dangerous enough to begin with, the fuel to further inflame them is available in the over-the-top rhetoric of the National Rifle Association, which has relentlessly pounded the bogus theme that Barack Obama is planning to take away people’s guns.

What's your opinion about the connection between the right-wing hate talk and the three shooters mentioned by Herbert? What about that assertion that the NRA has "relentlessly pounded the bogus theme?" Are those two assertions true?

In the aftermath of Waco, the N.R.A. did its typically hysterical, fear-mongering thing. In a fund-raising letter in the spring of 1995, LaPierre wrote: “Jack-booted government thugs [have] more power to take away our Constitutional rights, break in our doors, seize our guns, destroy our property, and even injure or kill us. ...”

I've seen comments to this effect, even here on my own blog. I accused the writers of being paranoid, of living in a fantasy world, of practicing what I called exaggerated victimism. Is this where the idea comes from? Did he really write "jack-booted government thugs" in a serious sentence? Is La Pierre the author of the absurd idea that gun bans will be followed by gun confiscation, an eventuality that must be resisted at any cost. That would be the 3%, right?

I noticed something else. I myself have been accused of "dancing in the blood" of victims in order to make my anti-gun point. I've heard this assigned to Paul Helmke numerous times, this "dancing in the blood of victims" nonsense. But, isn't that what Mr. La Pierre did after Waco? Didn't he appeal to the membership for donations, strategically timed after Waco, and playing up that fear angle? Do you pro-gun guys have no original tricks up your sleeves; is it all just rehash of what the NRA says and as often as possible accusing the other side of exactly what you're guilty of?

What's your opinion? Do you think Bob Herbert is an intelligent, well-researched writer who expresses the anti-gun argument well?

Please leave a comment.