It was nearing the end of the month and I expected Major Nathaniel Peabody would be in his usual unacceptable financial condition. I was, therefore, surprised when he not only invited me to a dinner at Bookbinder’s, but volunteered to pay for the dinner. It wasn’t the only surprise I received that evening.
Throughout the meal, the Major’s eyes as well as the conversation sparkled. We were enjoying a Spanish brandy and he was in process of lighting an H. Upmann cigar when our pleasures were interrupted. A man approached our table and addressed Peabody with a hearty, cordial, but patently insincere greeting. Then, uninvited, he sat at our table and our pleasant conversation was put on hold.
We both knew the man. We had often seen him on a local evening television news program. He read the canned news reports that were placed before him. He did his very best to sound like David Brinkley and look astute. He failed to achieve either goal. On Saturday mornings, he hosted a program devoted to local Philadelphia events. He impressed neither of us.
After watching those Saturday morning programs, any one with an analytic ability better than that of a garden slug would immediately conclude the man would never die of conservatism. He supported anything that could be labeled “liberal”, no matter how insane. That support was as automatic and predictably as the movement of a compass needle seeking out magnetic north.
It was understandable. In the television news commentary business, being liberal is a condition precedent for promotion from a rural to an urban and, finally, to a national television news position. Conservative newscasters have a high hurdle to jump. Anyone seeking advancement had better be liberal.
Peabody was quite aware of the newsman’s bias. The television station’s sportscaster had interviewed the Major on the occasion of the opening of the duck hunting season. After the segment had been taped, Peabody watched as, off camera, the newscaster chastised the sportscaster for favorably publicizing what he referred to as a “horrible blood sport designed to drive all waterfowl into extinction”.
Now, at our table in Bookbinders, the newsman gave no hint of his animosity toward hunting. “People are interested in you, Peabody,” he said. “The station got quite a bit of mail after your interview with our Sports Department.”
“Oh?” was the Major’s cautious response.
“Yes,” the newscaster continued, “quite a bit of mail. The viewing public’s interest in a personality like you is a newsworthy event and news is my business.” Major Peabody wondered if the man’s business was coloring the news or reporting it. However, he just smiled and, with difficulty, kept his mouth closed.
“The station has scheduled a program to investigate the societal effects of the development of hunting,” the newscaster announced, smiling his phony TV smile. “It will be taped on Saturday afternoon and it would be a privilege to have your participation. We do want the input of a hunter with your reputation. Will you join the panel?”
The Major accepted the newscaster’s invitation. His acceptance of the invitation was my second great surprise of the evening.
When the newsman left the table, I expressed that surprise. “Surely you know he has a long record of open antagonism to guns and hunting,” I said. “Surely you must be aware of what you’re letting yourself in for. Surely you know he’ll do everything possible to show the societal effects of the development of hunting are similar to the societal effects of atomic warfare.”
“Of course,” Peabody answered. “I know his record, but I couldn’t refuse him. He put me in an untenable position. If I didn’t accept, he’d claim I was frightened. During his show I’d be the empty chair he and his friends would point to. If I didn’t accept his invitation, no one would be there to defend hunting and gun ownership.”
* * * * *
On Saturday afternoon, I drove Peabody to the television station. When we arrived at the studio, the crew, the host and his other guest were waiting for us. The Major was quickly ushered to the set where the taping would occur. Brief instructions were given, someone counted backwards from five and the host introduced the program.
“Good morning, ladies and gentlemen of our viewing audience,” he began. “The steep rise of gun crime in both urban and rural America is one of the most serious problems facing our nation. At an alarming rate, mothers and innocent children are being maimed and killed in drive-by shootings and during the numberless other senseless crimes involving firearms. This morning we will investigate ways to eliminate gun crime and return to a more civilized society.”
I noticed one of the television cameras was constantly trained on the Major. If he ever burped, scratched his nose or showed an unattractive reaction, that portion of the tape was sure to appear when the telecast aired. Peabody, however, showed no outward reaction to the sandbagging.
The host’s introduction of the other panelist, an anti-gun activist, was lengthy and embarrassingly favorable to him. Peabody wasn’t treated that gently. With a subtle touch of contempt in his voice, the host described the Major in three short sentences.
“Nathaniel Peabody is here to try to defend gun owners. Peabody has developed a reputation with people who hunt. He is reported to have killed more of our birds than any man in the State.”
The next fifteen minutes were disgraceful. Peabody wasn’t given any opportunity to engage in the discussion. The host threw softball questions at the activist who quoted questionable statistics and painted frightful pictures of atrocities involving the use of weapons. In response to the question of how to reduce gun crime, the activist presented his plan. It consisted of five elements.
First, the importation for all firearms into the United States would be outlawed.
Second, the federal government would be given the exclusive right to manufacture firearms.
Third, the federal government would be given the exclusive right to sell and distribute firearms.
Fourth, all weapons currently owned by anyone other than military or the law enforcement personnel would be registered.
Fifth, a federal agency would be created for the purpose of collecting all registered weapons and storing them in government armories to be built at various strategic locations within each of the fifty States.
In deference to the hunting fraternity, the gun control activist was willing to allow a modification to his draconian measures. People planning a hunting venture could get their guns from the armories by filing a written application at least seven days in advance and by passing a background check. If there were no disqualifying results, a government employee would deliver the hunter’s weapon on the condition that it be returned to the armory within 24 hours.
The TV newsman, after nodding affirmatively during the gun controller’s explanations, agreed that the plan would certainly eliminate all gun crime and lead to world peace. Then he turned to the Major and asked: “That looks like a reasonable plan, Peabody. What do you think?” The Major’s response was immediate.
“I am deeply moved by my colleague’s passionate report of guns slaughtering infants as they lay helpless in their tiny cribs,” he said. “The spread of gun crime in the United States is a cancer deserving more than mere serious attention. It deserves action. I am pleased to announce my own interest in supporting my colleague’s five point plan.”
The Major’s statement was more than merely an unexpected surprise. It was a shock. The gun control activist’s face clearly showed the extent of his astonishment. The startled TV newscaster straightened up, knocked over his coffee and dropped his pencil. Standing off-camera, I couldn’t believe my ears. I’m sure all three of us shared the same thought. Major Nathaniel Peabody had gone mad.
Peabody disregarded our reactions and repeated his approval of the program. “I’m pleased to offer my support for your admirable plan to save humanity from the outrage of gun crime,” he said. “If gun owners and gun controllers can agree to work together to accomplish common goals, no force in this grand Republic can defeat us. Together, our two groups can eliminate not only one but another equally serious scourge of mankind.”
Peabody looked directly at the gun controller and said: “I believe gun owners will support your program to eliminate gun crime if gun control enthusiasts will, in turn, support the hunters’ five point program designed to eliminate venereal diseases from the face of the earth.”
While both opponents were still wordless, the Major described the five elements of the hunter’s venereal disease control program.
“First, all gun control people shall be registered and fitted with male and/or female chastity belts.
“Second, the keys to the devices will be deposited in a vault located in the same government armories where hunter’s firearms have been deposited.
“Third, those of the gun control persuasion who want to commit sex must fill out an application, giving seven days prior notice.
“Fourth, both parties to the application must go to the appropriate armory for blood tests and background checks.
“Fifth, if the tests and background checks show no disqualifying result, a government employee will meet with them at the home, motel or Chevrolet back seat identified in the application. He will unlock the devices, wait for half an hour, re-lock them and return the keys to the armory vault.
“If both of the programs my colleague and I espouse are adopted, we can all be assured the hunters’ program for eliminating venereal diseases will be just as effective as the gun controller’s program for eliminating gun crime.”
The taped program never appeared on television screens.