Part 7 Perfect Example Of Those Described In Nation Of Cowards

Larry Pratt
Part VII — Prof. Amitai Etzioni Perfect Example Of Those Attacked In New Book “Nation Of Cowards”

Throughout our lengthy, mind-numbing interview with Professor Amitai Etzioni, he gave us numerous ridiculous, spurious, and idiotic reasons why individual self-defense with privately-owned guns is a bad idea.

And as we pondered his absurdities we thought, more than once, about an excellent new, must-read book, which we offer through Gun Owners Foundation, by Attorney Jeff Snyder, titled Nation Of Cowards: Essays On The Ethics Of Gun Control (Accurate Press, 2001).

For example, Snyder says, at one point (p.17): “It is impossible to address the problem of rampant crime without talking about the moral responsibility of the intended victim. Crime is rampant because the law-abiding, each of us, condone it, excuse it, permit it, submit to it. We permit and encourage it because we do not fight back, immediately, then and there, where it happens.

Crime is not rampant because we do not have enough prisons, because judges and prosecutors are too soft, because the police are hamstrung with absurd technicalities. The defect is there, in our character. We are a nation of shirkers and cowards” (emphasis mine).

Exactly! And those gun-grabbers such as Etzioni and his ilk are a part of this problem when they unceasingly agitate against the God-given right of self-defense, a right protected by the Second Amendment to our Constitution.

Snyder also, correctly, attacks those who “readily believe that the existence of the police relieves them of the responsibility to take full measures to protect themselves.” He notes that gun-owners often mock this notion by issuing this challenge: “Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first” (pgs.17-18).

Snyder adds: “One who values his life and takes seriously his responsibilities to his family and community will possess and cultivate the means of fighting back, and will retaliate when threatened with death or grievous bodily harm to himself or a loved one. He will never be content to rely solely on others for his safety, or to think he has done all that is possible by being aware of his surroundings and taking measures of avoidance. Let’s not mince words. He will be armed, will be trained in the use of his weapon, and will defend himself when faced with lethal violence” (emphasis mine, pg.19).

Amen! And here, again, one thinks of Etzioni’s faith in burglar alarms and dialing 911 — but not in his ability, or the ability of anyone else, to use a privately owned firearm in self-defense.

Snyder says the antipathy many liberals have for gun owners “arises in good measure from their statist utopianism…. The liberal elite know that they are philosopher-kings. They know that the people simply cannot be trusted…. They are going to help us live the good and just life, even if they have to lie to us and force us to do it. And they detest those who stand in their way. The private ownership of firearms is a rebuke to this utopian zeal. To own firearms is to affirm that freedom and liberty are not gifts from the state” (pgs. 22-23).

Precisely. All hail Philosopher-King Etzioni! Throughout our interview, this Liberal elitist mockingly sneered — with a vengeance — at the idea of the private right of self-defense with guns.

Snyder says: In truth, one who believes it wrong to arm himself against criminal violence shows contempt of God’s gift of life…” (p.28). Again, right on target. When we asserted that self-defense was a God-given right, Etzioni ridiculed this notion.

Snyder says:

    The 20th century social sciences have made great strides in teaching individuals to make decisions about their lives as policy decisions based on a statistical analysis of societal outcomes rather than on moral principles, to no discernible good effect. It is high time that people stop thinking of themselves as governed by iron clad laws of human behavior presumed embodied in statistical facts, and begin thinking of themselves as moral agents, with rights and duties, and the freedom to act. Instead of wondering what statistics reveal about the likelihood of what will or will not happen to us, it is time we began thinking about what we are going to do (p.98).

Interestingly — speaking of the social sciences — Etzioni is the former President of the American Sociological Association. And, in our interview, he was always alluding to statistics that supposedly show how dangerous it is to try and defend one’s self with a gun.

Finally, there was some encouraging news in our interview with Prof. Etzioni. When we first contacted him to discuss his article calling on scholars to stop researching the Second Amendment — because this research might undermine pro-gun control court decisions — he asked: “Will you save me from being stoned? You wouldn’t believe the e-mail I received.”

Well, no, we can’t save the Professor from being stoned. But we can guarantee that he’ll have a better chance of survival if he’ll buy a good handgun, learn to use it and keep it by his bed. And we’re very happy to see that even in the academic community there are folks who believe that his article was crazy.