In Praise of Georgia Governor Perdue

[TPaine7]

ATLANTA - Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue said Monday that guns should be allowed in public areas of the nation's busiest airport.

And he suggested his own wife might want to pack a firearm for long walks between the parking lot and the terminal at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International.

"If my wife wanted to carry a gun, if she was going from the parking lot, walking from one of those far parking lots to pick up a grandchild or something like that, I think that's a good idea, yes," he said Monday.

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25680821

This is of course, either shockingly insane or natural and fair, depending on your position on gun rights. I see it as natural and fair--the non-secured areas of an airport being no different than most other non-secured areas. But that is not my point.

This governor deserves our profound respect, for recognition of a principle that transcends this individual application of gun rights and debatably the right to self-defense itself. As I see it, the core American value is the equality of all human beings. (America has obviously not lived up to that value throughout its history, but that is not the point, either.)

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."

That is the core principle of America's Genius, the seed from which all her good and nobility springs. It is when she fails in upholding that principle that she fails morally. Without equality of humanity, there would be no universal right of innocent self-defense.

We understand the mother bear's instinct to protect her cubs, but we do not accord her rights. We will not hesitate to kill her to protect stupid people trying to pet her cubs. That may not be fair; in fact a ranger may weep after performing such an unpleasant duty, complaining that he had to "kill the wrong animal." He may have a point, nonetheless, we do not hold bear life on an equality with human life, hence our policy.

The equality of humanity is a radical principle, an attempt to transcend animal nature. It is natural for animals to establish pecking orders, the strongest, the smartest, the fastest, the most dominant, the most popular having different rules than the rest. Sometimes--as in the case of some monkeys I saw in a documentary--the order is hereditary, passed down from mother to daughter. (One monkey was enterprising and smart, finding food when the group was starving, but she dared not eat any until the "queen" had eaten first. They even killed her baby after the queen's was born to remove a rival for attention. The smart monkey chose her mother poorly.)

And so in history (as well as today) there was nobility, people who had special rank due to blood or achievement. Rank had its privileges--well beyond anything practically associated with the duties or function of a position. Children were taught to respect their "betters", whether they were common Englishmen respecting the "peers of the realm", Indians respecting those of higher caste, or blacks in the Jim Crow South.

The vestiges are still with us today. It's simple animal nature--even if we wiped it out completely, it would spring up again at the first opportunity. Most people of high rank (read Bloomberg, Fenty, Nagin, Daley, Giuliani, etc.) would not dream of comparing their wives and families to commoners when considering public policy. They reflexively assume that they and those dear to them (in some cases that includes mistresses) are "special"--meriting special protection, special accommodations, special consideration--special rights.

Now let me be perfectly clear. To some extent they do merit special protection, special accommodations, special consideration--but never special rights. For example, Mayor X is--at least by job description--serving the interests of her major city. As a result of that fact, her son is in particular danger. Since the danger is a result of her public service, it is only fair that the public assume the expense of protecting one of his most sacred rights--the right to life. All is well so far; the right is respected and the responsibility and expense are placed in the appropriate place.

Now there lives in Mayor X's city another family. The mother, let us call her Mary, testified against her abusive and criminal husband and helped put him away for a long time. He promised a family reunion upon release. To protect herself and her son, she moved across the country to Mayor X's city and started a new life. But somehow he has found her. She saw him driving slowly past her house early one morning. So she wants a gun and training to protect herself. And she wants a concealed carry permit.

Mayor X is adamantly against concealed carry. She thinks it will lead to shootouts over parking spaces and fender benders. She is unimpressed by reality--the results attained by states that actually have concealed carry. She cannot defy the Supreme Court, but she ensures that there is a byzantine and expensive maze for those who want to possess guns in the home. Most of the media agree with this, of course, but one misfit asks her about the difference between her family and others like Mary's. She is apoplectic. "I'm the Mayor!" she almost screams. "My son needs special protection!"

She's right, of course. She is also beside the point. Her son has a right to life. That right is endangered due to public concerns, so the public pays the bill. Mary's son has an equal right to life. That right is endangered due to private concerns. Mary is prepared to pay the bill, but she cannot pay thousands of dollars in lawyer fees and wait months for the paperwork to go through. (This in addition to the hundreds of dollars she has saved for her handgun.) Why is Mayor X so intent on ensuring that sane adults with spotless records and training cannot protect their families? Why does she studiously ignore scholarship showing that honest citizens do better in lethal encounters than police officers?

Mayor X's position is tantamount to saying that her son's life is more valuable than Mary's son's life because of her status. That is profoundly un-American.

And so I salute Governor Perdue, not merely for his correct gun position, but for considering his wife the equal of a commoner. She is. And it is noble of him to admit it.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."

[BlooInBloo]

1. Gawd created man, but it took Smith & Wesson to make them equal.

:P

[Faygo Kid]

2. Archie Bunker video: Stop airplane hijackings; arm all the passengers. Classic.

I have no further comment than this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLjNJI54GMM

[TPaine7]

3. I fold

How can I argue with a clip from an old comedy? It clearly refutes the Declaration of Independence. America was a mistake, and all men are not created equal.

Divine right of Kings, here we come!!!!

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[Faygo Kid]

6. Glad you have a sense of humor!

I prefer gun toters to have one.

[tularetom]

4. Even an asshole can be right once in a while

Doesn't mean he ain't still an asshole.

[spin]

5. Great post (n/t)

[Donnachaidh]

7. "This governor deserves our profound respect"

You OBVIOUSLY do NOT live in Georgia.

The man's a pig - and he's only gotten involved in this *issue* because he knows it drives all the CRACKERS wild!

:eyes: :puke:

[TPaine7]

8. I meant to put in an "unless he's doing it for political advantage" clause

but it seemed cynical, even to my ears (I tend to distrust government officials generally). It looks like I should have.

In any case, I only said we should respect him on that point. I don't know about the rest of his positions.


(If Americans were as jealous of all their rights as they should be, even the most craven politician would be forced to simulate virtue while in office. America would be better off for it.)