Can't handle the truth
Sometimes the truth hurts. Some people can handle it. Some people can’t.
Consider the case of two women – Sarah Brady and a young woman living alone in Cape Girardeau, Missouri.
On March 30, 1981, John Hinckley fired six bullets at President Ronald Reagan as he exited the Washington Hilton Hotel. One of these bullets struck Reagan’s press secretary, James Brady, in the head. Brady survived his injury but was left permanently paralyzed. Four years later, Brady’s wife, Sarah, joined Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI), an anti-gun organization. HCI later became known as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. In the years since, Sarah Brady has worked tirelessly to eliminate law-abiding Americans’ Second Amendment rights under the guise of reducing gun violence.
On October 31, 2008, a young woman living alone shot and killed a man, Ronnie W. Preyer, who had broken into her home. Amazingly, one week earlier, Preyer, a convicted rapist who previously served 15 years in prison, had broken into her home and raped her. After the incident, the woman’s landlord added new door locks and bought her a shotgun for protection. She was lying in bed when Preyer smashed in the basement door. She grabbed the shotgun and, as he entered the room, shot him in the chest. Preyer died at the hospital a few hours later. The woman had never fired a gun in her life. Local law enforcement authorities said they believe Preyer became angry after learning a warrant had been issued for his arrest and that he had returned to kill the woman to prevent her from testifying against him.
Both these women faced unfortunate truths – Sarah Brady endured the pain of seeing her husband permanently paralyzed at the hands of a madman while the young Missouri woman faced being brutally raped and then likely marked for death by a convicted rapist and would-be murderer. But consider how each handled their truths. Sarah Brady could have chosen to work toward policies ensuring more effective treatment for the mentally ill, a choice that could have improved the lives of millions of Americans. Instead, rather than focusing on the mentally ill person who shot her husband, she misguidedly focused her energy on the object of her rage – guns. The truth is that she simply couldn’t handle the truth which is that she will never be able to even the score with the man who shot her husband. So, instead, she decided to make others pay by taking away something they have a constitutional right to possess. Further, she, like all other anti-gunners, can’t handle the fundamental truth that guns don’t shoot people – people shoot people. As for the young woman, she didn’t join a protest group, nor blame the police for failing to protect her. She simply faced the fundamental truth that there are bad people in the world and decided to never again be a victim.
Now, how is it that Sarah Brady should feel entitled to take away that woman’s right to protect herself? If Sarah Brady could guarantee that no man would ever again attempt to rape or otherwise harm another woman in this country, she might have some credibility. But she can’t. Nor can the police, nor the sheriff’s department, in fact, no one can make that guarantee. Nevertheless, that doesn’t seem to bother Sarah Brady and her anti-gun cronies. It doesn’t bother them because they aren’t concerned about individual people like you and me. They care about their agenda. They appear to argue that the elimination of guns would bring an end to violence itself. But the rapist that attacked the young woman didn’t have a gun. He didn’t need one. He was a man. She was a woman. Biology dictates, like it or not, that he had the advantage physically. Had she not had a gun, he would have succeeded in his intentions, whatever they may have been. But she did have a gun, and the courage to use it. And well she should have. After all, she had that constitutional right. More importantly, she had that most basic of all human rights – the right of self-preservation.
What happened to James Brady on that fateful day in the spring of 1981, a day I remember vividly, was a tremendous tragedy. And, no doubt, seeing her husband suffer has been a tragedy for Sarah Brady as well. But her actions since then demonstrate that rather than work toward something positive, such as expanded resources for the care of the mentally ill, she has sought to make others pay for her suffering, a very uncourageous act indeed. I wonder if the power of Sarah Brady’s convictions would allow her to stand face to face with that young rape victim and tell her she had no right to shoot her attacker in self-defense? I doubt it. Something tells me that’s a truth Sarah Brady just can’t handle.
To contact Spencer, read his daily blog, or view an archive of his columns, please visit conservativecommentaries.com.
