Coalition to Support Government Tyranny

OK--that's not really what they call themselves. But recently, the Director of Communications for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Ladd Everitt (who is also the president of the Washington DC chapter of the Million Mom March--I know this is none of my business, but if he is one of the Marching Mommies, I wonder who the father is--on second thought, I don't want to know), as much as publicly admitted that supporting tyranny was the objective.

Mostly Livingston wanted the “Living Letters” to help advocate stricter gun control in the U.S. He was joined by Ladd Everitt of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, who bewailed: "We have a real pride in violence in our country." He likewise exclaimed, "We also profit from it,” fingering the U.S. films that “glorify violence and promote vigilante justice,” according to a WCC account.

More revealingly, Everitt insisted that “the government must have a monopoly on force,” according to an account by my assistant Rebekah Sharpe, who attended the meeting. He identified the obstacles to fuller gun control as “hardcore gun owners” who have a “profoundly, virulently anti-government attitude.” Many of these hardcore zealots adhere to the National Rifle Association’s ostensible belief that “if our government becomes tyrannical they have a right to take over that government, our democratically elected government!” [emphasis mine]

"The government must have a monopoly on force," eh? I have never doubted that this was the core objective of the civilian disarmament groups, but I never expected them to come out and publicly acknowledge it. Note also his dismay at the thought of people believing they have a right to overthrow tyrants (especially if they are elected tyrants).

The article I quoted above is about a delegation from the World Council of Churches, which recently came to the United States "to investigate America's violence" (their itinerary wisely included Washington DC, with its rampant violence, and its draconian civilian disarmament laws--but I doubt they made the connection). The delegates were, oddly enough, referred to as "Living Letters" (is it just me, being a child of the '70's, or is anyone else having trouble shaking these mental images?). It was while they were in DC that Ladd made his speech to them. This speech was apparently well received--as evidenced by the agreement of the "Letter" from South Africa:

“Yes… the right wing out there wants to de-legitimize government… [If we give in to them] we are playing into the hands of the forces of chaos.”

Evidently, Africa has no history of governmental abuses--I'm so glad that I was apparently wrong about that.

The group also bleated and wailed in anguish over the various war memorials--reverence for courage and sacrifice is apparently very upsetting to their tender sensibilities.

The “Living Letters” also toured Washington’s many presidential monuments and war memorials, where they found lots of glorification of “violence.” Naturally, they were very concerned and asked, “Victory and sacrifice are the only way to build a great nation?” They also wondered why the “cost of freedom is paid by so many human lives.” While visiting the recently built World War II Memorial, they realized to their horror that “these praises of violence and sacrifice are not only memories of humanity’s past but are very much present today, in times we as churches are called to be protagonists.”

I suppose that's to be expected--anyone who opposes the use of force to free oneself from tyranny is naturally going to be horrified by the thought of using force to help free others.

Just curious, Ladd, when the tyranny you are trying to help bring about is imposed, do you figure to be one of those holding the whips, or is it your plan to survive through abject boot licking (I understand that some folks are into that sort of thing)?