Of Conspiracies–Politically Correct and Otherwise
by
Larry Pratt
Executive Director
Gun Owners of America

Much has been made of the 50 year anniversary of the atomic bomb. Richard Rhodes’ book, The Making of the Atomic Bomb, has been the source for much of this discussion. According to Rhodes’ book, another anniversary is upon us. Fifty-two years ago, on August 28, 1943, the Nazis ordered the Danish government to ban arms and to create a death penalty for those who harbored arms. The Danish government refused. The following day, the Nazis reoccupied Copenhagen and confined the Danish King.

Once again, we are reminded that those who seek to control a people or a nation must first seek to disarm them. Such a statement is merely common sense. Yet in the wake of the tragic events at Oklahoma City, it is no longer politically correct to say such things. Those who do are denounced as conspiracy theorists or even as lunatics who have no place in politics.

However, some folks were able to talk about conspiracy without being criticized in early August. They alleged that the entire Philadelphia legal system conspired to frame Mumia Abu-Jamal for killing a cop and were accorded a respectful hearing for their theories. It is politically correct to oppose the death penalty, so not surprisingly, a conspiracy that might discredit capital punishment was favorably reported.

Some conspiracy theories, long criticized, have turned out to be true. Until recently, people who believed there was an organized effort by the Soviet Union to undermine the American government were dismissed by the same politically correct crowd. Now Soviet and American Communist Party documents proving precisely that are a matter of public record in books like The Secret World of American Communism.

The far left in this country has a history of dismissing any criticism until presented with incontrovertible evidence. This technique allows them to pursue their agenda unhindered for years and even decades. Just as Alger Hiss has many defenders, so too do the actions of the federal government at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, and Waco, Texas.

One need not be Oliver Stone to ask questions about those events. Most fair-minded critics are rightfully concerned as to why the enforcement of this nation’s gun laws took an unusually deadly turn in 1992. The upcoming hearings on government excesses in Idaho should answer many questions, such as, what kind of government is so paranoid that it would equate Randy Weaver’s move to Idaho as evidence that he was conspiring to kill federal authorities? Why did the Justice Department cover-up evidence that it had illegally set in place a shoot-on-sight policy that led to the killing of Weaver’s wife? Was the killing of Weaver’s son (who was shot in the back) justified?

The investigation into the Weaver killings comes on the heels of the Waco hearings in July. Congress discovered the Clinton administration had engaged in an extensive cover up to suppress exculpatory evidence that would implicate government officials of wrongdoing in the aftermath of more than 80 men, women and children being killed.

This Administration and its allies go out of their way to whip up hysteria against law-abiding gun owners and anyone else who criticizes any act of the federal government. Like the Nixon Administration before it, this Administration seems willing to do anything, fair or foul, to discredit its opponents in the pursuit of a cover-up. Perhaps this is why a recent poll found 52% of the American people believe the government to be an immediate threat to their liberties.

Those who ask questions about the Clinton administration’s gun policies are in the main responsible citizens with reasonable concerns. As even Congress discovered during the Waco hearings in July, conspiracy theories sometimes turn out to be true.