TKO: Liberty Belles Trounce Million Moms
TKO:
Liberty Belles Trounce "Million Moms"
by
Marian Hollenbeck
Director of Media and Public Relations for
Liberty Belles
LibertyBelles.org
March 26, 2002
You would think
that a forum being held at a college in Los Angeles (arguably, but hardly so,
Gun Control Capitol of the West) with the topic "Gun Ownership vs. Gun
Control - Which Is Safer?" would present a safe haven for the emotional
rhetoric of gun-controllers like Charles Blek and impressionable youngsters like
Jennifer Mendoza.
However, when a debate is sponsored by a Libertarian group such as Students
For Individual Liberty, the emotionalism that works so well with the gun-control
True Believers and collegiate skulls full of mush is just so much raw meat to be
tossed before hungry tigers.
L.A. Harbor College in Wilmington, California was the setting for this debate
this past Wednesday, and there was a "standing room only" crowd. When
there is the promise of podium-chewing action between the biggest anti-gun
female group in America and an up-and-coming activist group that focuses on
women's support of the Second Amendment, it's not likely those on the stage will
outnumber their audience.
Taking the side of the Second Amendment were wife and mom Anna Zetchus Raetz,
spokeswoman for Liberty Belles, and Randy Herrst of the Center
For The Study Of Crime. Both came armed with confidence, statistics, and
knowledge of the Constitution.
On the side of gun control were Charles Blek of the Orange County Citizens
For Prevention Of Gun Violence (and husband to Million Mom March general Mary
Leigh Blek) and Jennifer Mendoza, an L.A. Harbor College student in favor of gun
control, armed only with emotion, sound bites, and in Miss Mendoza's case,
unsourced statistics. Miss Mendoza is a very sweet, pretty young lady, but she
smiled nervously throughout the proceedings and was unable to provide any
backing for her claims. Mr. Blek seemed visibly apprehensive that the story of
his son's murder by armed gang members, along with a few simplistic claims that
more gun control is needed, would not be nearly enough to convince anyone that
gun control would reduce violent crime.
Each of the speakers were permitted about ten minutes each for opening
statements. Mr. Blek was on deck first, talking about his son's murder and a new
two-prong approach to responsible gun ownership. The first prong: The acceptance
of California State Police Chiefs Association's paper on gun ownership as
"our Bible", and secondly, addressing gun violence with a "public
health approach".
In addressing what he called the Five Most Common Stock Answers he received
from pro-Second Amendment dissenters, his arguments against such answers were
more personal opinion than anything substantive. When told to "lock up the
criminals", Mr. Blek argues that it's an insult to him to suggest he does
not wish criminals to be locked up, and argues the "disingenuousness"
of NRA's non-support of California's 10-20-Life bill as evidence, somehow, that
the NRA is the organization that does not wish criminals locked up. When
confronted with the argument, "It's not the gun", Mr. Blek points out
the dangers of "acting-out teenagers" possibly using the gun without
addressing how *exactly* an "acting-out teenager" somehow makes an
inanimate object like a gun culpable for what that teenaged individual chooses
to do with it. His argument against those who hold to the notion of the Second
Amendment is basically that it all depends on what the definition of
"well-regulated" is. (I doubt the Founding Fathers were frantically
looking for a loophole to include in the Bill of Rights to make it easier for
those like Mr. Blek to encourage the government to create twenty-thousand or so
laws to "regulate" gun ownership as Mr. Blek sees fit, as much as it
may surprise him.) He sneers at the warnings of "slippery slope" as
just so much table-pounding, and the argument about "convenience" he
dismissed with: "May I suggest that's all a matter of context. The true
inconvenience is having to bury your own dead child." (Perhaps Mr. Blek
would like to discuss "context" with fine ladies such as Mary
Carpenter and Carma Lewis, if he or his fellow organizations ever have the
nerve.)
Anna Zetchus Raetz was a most lively and invigorating follow-up to Charles
Blek, eschewing emotionalism and Mr. Blek's dangerous misinterpretation of
"common sense gun control" in favor of outright common sense. "
Gun control, speaking of disingenuous, seems like a really odd term to me,
because a gun, if you want to control it, it's really not such a difficult thing
to do. If you put it into a drawer, it probably won't remove itself or go out on
any mad rampages on its own. So it does require an individual to come and then
take that gun and do something with it. So gun control ultimately is people
control, because we're not talking about what we're going to do about an
inanimate object."
She spoke of the crucial and unique role of the Second Amendment as a part of
American culture. "All governments inherently are going to be in some way
evil, but the government that has been designed where it is to be controlled by
the people is an anomaly in the world. The government that bases and predicates
the rights for its people from an ethereal, untouchable, unalienable,
uninfringeable source is very unique in international and political
history." The first *real* enactment of gun control came into our formed
nation after the Civil War, where many of those who were not comfortable with
the freeing of slaves hoped to restrict the Constitutional rights of the new
citizens - ergo, the establishment of gun control in this country is racist in
its conception.
Anna's statements as to the empowerment of criminals via gun control were
most compelling. "A lot of people that are against guns are people who
wouldn't trust themselves with guns. I hear that from a lot of people....And of
course I'm not going to say to the person, 'Well, because you can't control
yourself, I don't know if the person down the street can control himself, so
because you might not be able to control yourself and the person down the
street, I don't know if *he* can, I'm going to control both of you so that I can
be safe.' But meanwhile, because I live in a neighborhood where no-one can
control themselves, [the criminals are] going to take control, because we have
now offered it up to he who wants it the most - he who wants the power the most,
he who wants whatever it is. We have made ourselves willing subjects...Nothing
makes me more nervous than a gun-free zone. Because if *I* know it's a gun-free
zone, someone *else* knows it's a gun-free zone. Now I know *I'm* not going to
do anything in a gun-free zone except stay away from it, because I don't want
some lunatic coming in knowing it's a 'Fire-Back-Free Zone'. It's free of anyone
who's going to stop he who is going to become the most powerful person."
She finished sharing two anecdotes with the audience - one of an Israeli
woman who drew a gun and shot dead a terrorist who was attempting to set off a
bomb in a crowed supermarket, and a father who protected his son from two armed
robbers in his son's place of employment. "*That's* gun control!" she
quipped to the approving audience.
It was difficult to watch pro-gun control student Jennifer Mendoza following
Anna's extemporaneous poise. Miss Mendoza prepared for a week on her position,
yet it all sounded curiously like a Brady Campaign or
Million-Billion-Actually-It's-A-Few-Ten-Thousand-Moms-And-Their-Henpecked-Partners
Student Study Guide Of Sound Bites. No sources were listed for her statistics.
No evidence suggested that those solutions she proposed would ever work. I
wondered if those who indoctrinate on campuses for the anti-gun groups decided
to abandon mention of the Kellermann study whenever possible, because this very
nice young lady was left with nothing but a rather practiced call for background
checks, age-limit raising, and gun education without suggesting how this can be
successfully implemented to reduce crime or accidental shootings. The pro-gun
control advocates must be feeling very comfortable in their positions still
think that stuffing a young lady's head with emotionalism and non-substantiated
rhetoric will hold up in a legitimate debate. They should be ashamed of
themselves.
The final speaker was Randy Herrst of the Center
For The Study Of Crime. Calm and matter-of-fact, he presented statistics as
well as personal experiences of defending himself utilizing a firearm - without
having to injure anyone. The tragic irony of Charles Blek's support of gun
control was evident when Mr. Herrst started comparing the gun ownership freedom
in Seattle, Washington with the gun control laws in New York City, where Matthew
Blek was murdered. Mr. Herrst stated there would be a 75% chance that Mr. Blek's
son would be alive today if he had been in Seattle, seeing as their laws permit
the defense of oneself and fellow citizens with a firearm and New York City's
laws empower the criminal over a law-abiding citizen like Mr. Blek's son. If I
were in the situation where someone like Mr. Blek's son was being assaulted, and
I had been carrying a gun legal or illegal, I could assure you that his son would
be alive today."
Mr. Herrst then addressed the "gun control" and "safety
law" issues by quoting John Gotti's infamous Mafia hit man, Sonny "da
Bull" Gravano. "Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks
and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always going to
have a gun...Safety locks? You pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull
the trigger. We'll see who wins."
The question and answer session following the presentation became an
impassioned and heated battleground for arguments on both sides. Mr. Blek felt
it necessary to take a question from the audience directed to Miss Mendoza, who
gamely stated, when pressed, "Everything Mr. Blek just stated would be my
response."
Anna answered a question from a "fence-sitter" in the audience who
expressed her appreciation of responsible gun owners, but feared those who were
not responsible: " If I already obey the law, what difference does it make
if *I* jump through more hoops to obey the law? We can either maintain power
with citizens, or we can give it up and let the criminals take over, like what
is happening in England. We don't have to go back in time. We don't have to talk
about Hitler disarming Jews. We don't have to talk about any of that stuff. We
can talk about today, right now, because it's the same thing. 'Oh, we just want
to get rid of the handguns. Well, first we just want to register. Well, now that
just because we've registered, we can take all your guns away.' And that's what
we've done. And in England, that's what they've done. Now 1 out of every 4
people is a victim of violent crime. 1 out of every 4. Twenty-six percent. And,
oh, maybe they just beat you and knock you over the head and steal your stuff.
They're still in control. They are the ones in control. And the unarmed bobbies
are now a thing of the past. Now the police have to arm themselves, and they
have race riots in England. Why? Because people can no longer protect
themselves."
Mr. Blek decided to throw aside statistics and take personal issue with Mr.
Herrst's statements of Mr. Blek being a paid spokesman: "I appreciate the
fact that Randy thinks I'm paid by the responsible gun folks, but I'm not. I'm
here as a volunteer. And I would like to be anywhere else but here. About my
son, Randy doesn't have a single clue about the circumstances surrounding his
death. And yet every time we end up being together somewhere, he feels compelled
to talk about it, and the example he gave tonight is blaming the victim. We have
a right to be where we are, we have a right to be safe where we are, whether in
Seattle instead of New York he'd be safer...I'm sorry, Randy, that's just plain
crap."
"I appreciate Mr. Blek's level of intellectual discourse here," Mr.
Herrst retorted. He denied blaming the victim at all, rather placing the blame
on dangerous gun control laws that make it difficult for people to defend
themselves. "I have heard the story of his son's death many times, so I am
not totally ignorant of the circumstances. It has been covered in various
stories that he and his wife have done, either as editorials or done interviews
with media. I can assure you I do know something about it. I also assure you it
would have been less likely to happen in a place where people are allowed to
carry guns. And I am certain that if it had been happening while I was carrying
a gun, it wouldn't have happened."
Without taking anything away from Mr. Blek's tragedy, he seemed to react in a
most unusual and unfeeling fashion when countered by members of the audience - a
lady who was unable to prevent rape and attack upon her person because of
California's waiting period, and a lady whose husband defended himself five
times with a firearm without ever having to create a fatality statistic - who
wished to share their own stories.
To these stories, Mr. Blek remarked: "We have no quarrel with personal
anecdotes."
To me, that was downright rudeness, considering the fact that he expects
everyone to give up their rights without argument because of what happened to
his son. What Mr. Blek obviously did not wish for people to realize - and, I'm
certain, especially the young lady whom his side indoctrinated so poorly - is
that there are many, many more people in this nation who have utilized their
Second Amendment rights to protect themselves, their families, and their
property to a much greater degree than it has caused harm to unwitting
innocents...and they have their own personal testimonies to back them up.
Add to that Anna Raetz chatting up Jennifer Mendoza in her usual friendly
fashion and the MMM sign-up sheet of three names for the anti-gun mailing list
with two crossed off the role *after* the debate...I can well understand why Mr.
Blek "would like to be anywhere else but here."
Folks who are not as easily malleable and putty-brained are not to Mr. Blek's
taste, nor do they promise a mindless and emotional mob-jority for the tired
rhetoric and the disreputed "statistics" he and his partners and
minions have employed for so many years.
May
Mr. Blek always find this is so in a medium not dominated and controlled by the
lapdog media. Amen.
Marian Hollenbeck is the Director of Media and Public Relations for
LibertyBelles.org and can be reached at:
marian@liberty-belles.org.
