Quote of the Day.

This is another multi-parter. The first part comes from Mr. Dave Musgrove, a self-described "Democratic voter and blogger" who penned a piece for Pajamas Media about the Des Moines, Iowa Pizza Hut delivery driver who used his legally carried concealed weapon to defend himself against a mugger, and who subsequently lost his job, since carrying a pistol with the pizza is against Company Policy.

The whole piece isn't very long, but the gist of it is that Mr. Musgrove doesn't understand the difference between "violent and predatory" and "violent but protective." No, in Mr. Musgrove's world, if you carry a gun, you're a threat (unless, of course, you're an authorized agent of the State. - Remember my three-part series on that?)

Musgrove states:

Among the internet reader comments on James Spiers’ story are more than a few urging a boycott against Pizza Hut. I don’t think a boycott, per se, will be necessary. More likely, the next time I think about ordering pizza, part of me will be reminded that the delivery guy may be armed, and I’ll hear a whisper of Dirty Harry’s own voice asking, “Do I feel lucky?”

So I won’t be doing any boycotting. But wondering whether the pizza delivery guy trotting up my walk is packing heat along with my pepperoni isn’t likely to do my appetite any favors.

Because, you see, in Musgrove's world Mr. Spiers, the victim of the robbery, is equally as dangerous as Kenneth Jimmerson, the man who tried to mug him, but who won't be mugging anybody for a while.

Musgrove also put up a post at his own site, No Pizza for Old Men, where he noted the volume and tone of the comments to his PJM piece. What did he learn from those comments?

95 comments so far over at PJM. Here is what I have learned so far:

guns = safety
killing = courage

I dropped him a comment of my own:

Here's what I've learned:

You = oblivious

You actually suggested that disarming the victim would be better than allowing him to defend himself. Have you actually tried to engage any of your critics?

No, that would require Mr. Musgrove to question his own philosophy. He took two additional comments, then closed the comment thread at his site, but not before he added what he thought would be the clincher argument, the one that made his point of the PJM piece:

Whether you agree or disagree with what I have written, I commend to you these words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who died 40 years ago today, himself the victim of gun violence:

"I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality... I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word."

Problem is, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. died from hatred. A rifle wasn't the cause of his death. A bomb would have done the job James Earl Ray set out to do. Or a molotov cocktail, or any of dozens of other methods. But Musgrove blames the gun, 'cause, guns'r bad mmmmkay?

None of those are the Quote of the Day. This is, and it's by The Geek with a .45:

In a truly civil society peopled primarily by enlightened, sober individuals, the carriage of arms might be deemed gratuitous, but it is nonetheless harmless. In a society that measures up to anything less than that, the option to carry arms is a necessity.

I'm sure Mr. Musgrove would read it and shake his head and move on. As Churchill put it, "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened."
Amen. And good night.