It's funny, 'cause it's true: Paul Blart, the unarmed mall security guard hero of the new film, is a more suitable exemplar of the "protect and serve" ethic than the government's armed enforcement agents.I can believe the last part, easily, but this business of an unarmed protector works against reality on two counts--first that we should rely on protectors, and second, it perpetuates the myth that arms are superfluous when confronting violent evil-doers.
I typically have nothing but respect for what William N. Grigg writes, and my natural inclination is to trust him. In this case, I need to reserve judgment until I see the film. And I'm afraid with the cost of movies and with others out there I'd rather see, I'll just have to wait for it to come out on cable.
Maybe next year I'll gush in agreement. Still...
[Via Zachary G]
2 comments:
Did you see this part:
Rather than permitting the State -- the enemy of all human prosperity and social progress -- to monopolize and militarize security functions, we should be dis-establishing government police mechanisms as rapidly as possible and relying on private means (beginning with ubquitous civilian firearms ownership) to provide security for persons and property.
I don't think Will was saying there was any special good in the mall guard being unarmed. He seemed to be saying that the contrast between the "cops" and a private guard demonstrated the utter criminality and uslessness of the former.
That this was done in a humorous and entertaining manner is especially good. I might break a very long held rule and actually go see this one. :)
Anytime he did succeed at anything, it required a suspension of logic (and I think purposefully so). I think this movies is the chronicling of the daydreams of a mall cop.
Post a Comment