I have a suggestion. Bear arms.
Commenting on the terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo, a Reason.com reader points to a profile of Henry Jarvis Raymond (1820 – 1869) at the website of Green-Wood cemetery.
At the moment, the most urgently relevant detail of Green-Wood’s profile is not Raymond’s co-founding of The New York Times, his politics or his friendship with Abraham Lincoln, but how he defended his paper against threat of assault.
“During the ‘high tide’ of the Confederacy . . . Raymond fought to rally public opinion in favor of the Union. When draft rioting mobs approached the offices of The New York Times in July 1863, Henry Raymond held them off with three Gatling guns he had obtained from the army.”
Charlie Hebdo has been attacked by Islamo-terrorists before. In 2011, its Paris office was badly damaged by a firebomb unleashed in reply to a “Charia Hebdo” issue of the satirical magazine.
At least since that attack, then, the risk to Charlie Hebdo staff for ridiculing Islam, Islamism and/or Muhammad* has not been merely theoretical. I applaud the fact that they have fearlessly persisted in their satiric mission despite what happened — and are fearlessly persisting now despite a much steeper cost.
But if you’re in that situation, please don’t just brave the odds. Even the odds. Ensure that personnel are well-trained in the use of firearms, and that these weapons are easily accessible at all times.
And if you’re a government, make bearing arms easy.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
* It may be worthwhile pointing out — as many have — that the satirists were not narrowly ridiculing one culture, that of Muslims; they have been and are across-the-board satirists, mocking politicians, clerics and partisans of most (if not all) stripes. Further, though widely considered a left-wing magazine, its editorial policy has never fallen into the lefty rut of blaming only the West and bending backward to defend foreign criminals and tyrants.
6 replies on “Wanted: Armed Satirists”
The government disarms it’s citizens falaciously in the name of safety and then does nothing to protect them. Which is appropriate, only because governments cannot protect. They can only levy consequences. It is the responsibility of every adult to protect themselves.
Please remember the Paris police guarding HEBDO were UNARMED.
Is that stupid or not?
Paul: It’s interesting you cite, at the end, a Washington Com-Post (h/t: Mark Levin) article, that while it seems to be wringing it’s hands over whether gun rights protect people or not, their article cites a far-left website, Mother Jones. This website, FYI, has a headline today stating that if “Fox News didn’t exist, there would have been no Iraq war.” Really? The MJ cited article is attempting to debunk stats the NRA put out showing how Americans being armed would ensure they would be able to protect themselves (Duh!). The Compost article cited is a mish-mash of back-hand confusion and not really a worthy screed to be debating.
It’s about time someone states the obvious. It may be an old saying, but:
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
There’s no substitute for employees well prepared to use firearms, but first they should focus on passive security measures.
Mantrap systems, where people are buzzed in by security guards are reliable and relatively inexpensive, as are barred windows, concealed video cameras, etc.
“There’s no substitute for employees well prepared to use firearms, but first they should focus on passive security measures.”
They should do whatever is possible, ASAP. Optimally, both.