The latest round of violence in our nation's Capitol, which claimed
the lives of two capital police officers, is a tragedy that should never
have happened. But the image from the shoot-out that haunts me was
reported by the Seattle Times Sunday:
While the two men fired more shots at each other --
one witness said there were at least eight or ten
rounds -- the woman [the gunman had been chasing]
scrambled frantically in the hallway from closed door
to closed door, pleading for someone to help her.
Witnesses told police they heard her yelling, "Help!
Help! Help!" but they were too afraid to open doors for
her, sources said.
Advertisement - story continues below
Later, the Times reported:
Authorities charged Weston [the gunman] under a
federal statute that covers cases in which federal law-
enforcement officers are slain during performance of
their official duties.
TRENDING: The joylessness of cancel culture
Our "leaders" can't be bothered to open their doors to a terrified
woman running away from a murderer. At the same time, they deem
themselves better than us: they have special laws to protect themselves.
Under their "leadership," ordinary "murder" is no longer a serious
President Clinton's administration seems to have been plagued by
violence: Ramiz Yousef's foiled plans to fly a small, explosive-laden
plane into the CIA, random attacks by gunmen firing at the White House,
Vicki and Samuel Weaver, the Branch Davidians,
Vincent Foster, Ron Brown, the World Trade Center bombing, the Oklahoma
City Bombing. And now Mr. Weston has attacked Congress.
Advertisement - story continues below
The homogeneous American media have been quick to characterize these
attacks as "anti-government" violence. I began to wonder -- does that
make the Weavers and the Branch Davidians victims of "pro-government"
violence? It certainly seems so: both challenged the government's
authority over ever-increasing parts of their lives. And both paid with
Pro-government violence is not something the history-challenged
American media gets worked up about. They should.
Indeed, when it comes to violence, governments rank far ahead of
their citizens in this form of self-expression. In LETHAL LAWS
(published by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, 1994),
the group documents seven major genocides in this century, involving
50-60 million citizens: Ottoman Turkey, the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany,
China, Guatemala, Uganda and Cambodia. (It may be worth noting that in
every case, gun-control laws preceded the "genocide regime.")
Bulging at the seams with big-government, statist liberals and
authoritarian elitists, what passes for America's press simply can't
seem to comprehend why anyone would oppose more government. After all,
aren't new laws the solution to every inequity
encountered in life? Doesn't greater uniformity in the law (federal over
state) mean more "fairness"? Isn't the bureaucracy supposed to regulate
every aspect of our working lives, and punish us when we rebel?
Shouldn't government bureaucrats determine the time and place we are
born, dispense heath care during our lifetimes, and determine when and
how we die? Isn't abortion a God-given right? How could anyone oppose
"fairness" of racial quotas that deny superior ability in favor of
national mediocrity? Welfare not an entitlement? Who could imagine!
Reform of the IRS? Well, of course -- but "innocent until proven
guilty?" Let's not be extreme!
If the press won't debate these issues, then we're not going to have
a debate. If we don't have a debate, society won't reach consensus.
Without consensus, government can't govern. Governments that impose
consensus at the point of a gun risk having the gun turned on
themselves. Jesus said it well: "Those who live by the sword die by the