Guns, Laws,nRightsnAlan M. Gottlieb: The Rightsnof Gun Owners; Caroline HousenPublishers; Aurora, Illinois.nThe hard face of liberal irrationalitynshows itself nowherenmore clearly than on the issue ofngun control. Most liberals ownnno guns; indeed, they break outnin a cold sweat at the mere sightnof one, unless, of course, the offensivenweapon be wielded by anghetto child or a Third Worldnrevolutionary: then it becomesnan accessory of sainthood. Liberalnfantasies roam freely overnthe psychic landscape in an effortnto stereotype gun owners.nIn the resulting fanciful construct,nthe gun owner becomes anbeetle-browed redneck, seethingnwith rage against feminists,nblacks, Jews and homosexuals.nTo vent his rage he kills anythingnthat ‘moves, from fluffy-tailednrabbits to limpid-eyed deer. Besides,neveryone knows he is impotent,nfor his attachment to gunnbarrels betrays a Freudian obsessionnwith his own inadequacies.nBy such flights of fantasy the liberalntransforms those threateningnrednecks in pickup trucksninto figures of liberal demonology.nIt would be foolish to denynthat “gun nuts” exist; we havenall known that individual whosenhouse resembles a well-stockednarsenal and whose unstable egondemands reassurance from an.357-magnum revolver. But donwe disarm everyone in order toncontrol these few.’ The Bill ofnRights clearly guarantees thenright to bear arms, and the desirento exercise this right isndeeply embedded in the Americanncharacter. Alan Gottliebndefends gun ownership, showsnits firm foundation in law andnhistoric practice and remindsngun owners that responsibilitiesnmust always accompanynrights.,His state-by-state listingnof gun-control ordinances conveysnthe message that gun ownersnmust obey the laws of thenland, even when they find thosenlaws burdensome. In a curiousnturnabout, a good deal of lawlessnessnsprings not from gunnowners but, as Mr. Gottliebnshows, from the zealous agentsnof the Bureau of Alcohol, To­nLet’s Discuss ItnSamuel L. Blumenfeld: IsnPublic Education Necessary?;nThe Devin-Adair Co.; Old Greenwich,nConnecticut.nby George M. Curtis IIInThis tempestuous, argumentativenbook raises more questionsnthan it answers. Ostensibly thenquestion posed in the title suggestsna utilitarian treatment of anvexing contemporary issue. Notnso. Blumenfeld concentrates hisnattention upon 18th- and 19thcenturynperpetrators of the monsternwe have come to know asnpublic education. His title then isnrhetorical, for a resoundinglynnegative answer is presumednthroughout. In what appears tonbe a hastily crafted book, Blumenfeld,na staunch defender ofnprivate education, seeks to identifynand analyze the people, ideasnand ideologies that contributednto the victory of public educationnby 1850.nBlumenfeld’s historical landscapenis dreary, monopolized asnit is with the likes of RobertnDr. Curtis is professor of historynat Hanover College in Indiana.nbacco and Firearms who practicenharassment and entrapmentnin their efforts to disarm thenpopulace. It would be good tonlive in a society where criminalsnwere lovable scoundrels and citizensnfelt no need to arm themselvesnin self-defense. But untilnthat day arrives, we had bestnrecognize the profound truthncontained in a favorite slogannof gun lobbyists: “When GunsnAre Outlawed, Only OutlawsnWill Own Guns.” DnOwen, Horace” Mann, the ranknand file of Unitarianism, the kindrednspirits of the new communitariannmovements and the championsnof secular statism. From anlate 20th-century perspective, itnoften comes as a depressing surprisento learn that there existedn’ strong-minded reformers in thengeneration after the Foundersnwho advocated the positive statenand who viewed it as a social,npolitical and cultural force tonmanipulate behavior so as tonserve the ends of the state. Addingnto Blumenfeld’s distress isnhis discovery that most of thisnjaded group were, in actuality,nthe twisted progeny of New EnglandnCalvinism—albeit by thennshorn of faith in either theocracynor education governed by Protestantnchurches or church leadership.nBlumenfeld is offendednby both the godlessness of Owennand the heresy of Unitarianismnand finds in each a sinister andnominous portent for an increasinglynsecularized and intrusivenstate. All these disturbing trendsnseem to culminate in HoracenMann, the long-time secretarynfor the Massachusetts Board ofnEducation and the intellectualnnnfather of universal, state-operatedneducation.nIt is Blumenfeld’s obvious purposento discredit these peoplenand their ideas, no matter hownbenign their individual viewsnmight have been. The shrill,nangry tone that pervades thisnbook becomes troublesome. Itnprompts one to wonder whethernthe intemperate presentationnmight cost the author his chancenfor a fair hearing from those henreally seeks to persuade. Obviouslynthose already committednto his views might find welcomenreinforcement in his trumpetlikencalls. But does Blumenfeld reallynbelieve that his insights and suggestionsnwill win a lasting intellectualnbeachhead on those influentialndesert islands known asncolleges of education.’ PerhapsnBlumenfeld does not care aboutnthis audience, preferring insteadnto clear his lungs among friends.nIf so, one wonders why.nUltimately his intemperancendoes neither his defenders nornhis pertinent criticisms any realnand lasting service. His excursionninto American history is sonpatently adversarial that his hypothesesnbecome vulnerable tonany attack which utilizes contrarynevidence. This intellectualnstrip-mining of the Americannpast for the purpose of fuelingnthe fires of contemporary argumentnis a comparatively simplenjob. Cutting and pasting bits andnpieces from the lives and ideasnof a select few and interspersingncontemporary commentarynmakes for interesting grist fornthose political mills already dedicatednto a particular mission. Butnit does little to change people’snminds or to do real justice to thenAmerican past. The adage aboutntruth being stranger than fictionnapplies to this book. When historynis fodder, then a proportionalnequation goes into effect: thenbetter the history, the more convincingnthe argument. The conversenis also true. One hopes thatnBlumenfeld has not made a tombnJanuarj/Februarj’ 1982n