Just a note to let you know that talk-radio host Al Rantel on KABC
excerpts from your 4/21 column on the air. He read them 4/27 at
Al Rantel said he does not normally read material on his show, but
that your column was so good he had to make an exception. He
interupted himself during the reading to exclaim at how great the
text was. He used your material during his argument about the
futility of the laundry list of anti-self defense laws recently
wheeled out by the president.
The parts he read were, as I recall, the first four paragraphs of the
"reply" portion of your column, starting with "In Israel...", skipped
the fifth short paragraph, read the sixth ("Unlike you...") omitting
the word "Garand."
He also read these portions of the remainder:
"... I would still use my weapons to defend your rights, your
property, and the safety of your family, even after you have
condemned me, vilified me, and voted to strip me of my God-given
right to self-defense."
"Do I take it you oppose the existence or use of all firearms?"
"And what about today in Littleton, Colorado? Would you have
condemned the police to enter that building without firearms? Or do
you actually believe that firearms are fine, so long as they're only
in the possession of government agents ... as was the case under
Stalin in 1931, under Hitler in 1942, under Mao in 1955, under Pol
Pot in 1971?"
"Continue on your present course. You seem to be in the majority. So,
with luck, you may yet survive -- at least briefly -- to live under
just such a regime, yourself."
He identified you by name and position at the LVRJ.
Unfortunately, this talk show host is a nerf libertarian. He makes a
few of the right noises, but said on his show that he had no real
objection to most of the victim disarmamanent proposals. His point
was that those proposed laws would be ineffective and would not have
altered the events at Columbine High School.
I hope you're having a good time on your book tour!
Hi, Pete --
Thanks for writing. That column has been getting a lot of circulation
-- demonstrating that, perhaps, there is indeed some point to stating
our principles forthrightly, rather than cringing in the corner,
advancing one limp compromise measure after another, and waiting to
"see how they fly."
Vin Suprynowicz, email@example.com