20 April 2007

RKBA Round-Up #7

The "finally got off my butt and back in the game" edition.

You know that the VT massacre is going to stir up all sorts of hype. The Bradys, within hours of the disaster, were hitting people up for money for their cause. And since campuses can be full of people with a lot of ideas to express, but not a whole lot of experience to help them discern what makes sense and what does not, I expect a lot of lamenting over gun issues from people who don't know a Glock from a doorknob.

Wisconsin-Madison, as ever, leads the way knee-jerk responses from the shortened left leg. Max Schusselberg spearheads this parade of idiotarianism as only a freshman in journalism can do:

The Second Amendment is Out of Date...here are the highlights. Tremble before the wisdom of the nascent barking moonbat!

There was a time in American history when the Second Amendment’s “right to bear arms” promoted safety and a sense of well-being among the citizenry of the United States. Today, however, the Second Amendment seems to do nothing more than act as a precipitant of violent and life-threatening behavior.
As to be expected, it's the same old stuff we hear from that corner all the time...praising the metropolitan over ruralites, paranoia over the NRA, trying hard not to paint all gun owners as unstable fanatics but failing miserably, advocating trust in the police (as if cops were somehow absent in Blacksburg this past Monday), and being very long on opinion, but short on any real research, much less original thought.

For example, despite the title of the article, there is very little discussion over 2A itself. I don't think the fellow has even read the amendment, especially the parts concerning the freedom and security of the state. I guess such notions are out of date, aren't they?

But I'll give Max a little slack. After all, he is a freshman. And, happily, you have the option to respond to such idiotarianism in the Badger-Herald. I did. The responses at the bottom of the page are probably worth more than the article itself.

Getting closer to the epicenter of our most recent social earthquake, WVU's Athenauem publishes a half-hearted attempt to address the violence. Mr. Doyle, who I guess is a regular columnist at the paper (makes me feel sorry for the rag) doesn't offer much in the way of arguments that have a lot of bite in the issue. Just the usual "2A didn't take into account these kind of weapons," "why do you need this for hunting?", "you should rely on the cops more." As if these youngsters were coming up with something really enlightening.

Again, let me say that opinions are fine. But please, give us something we can think about, not something that's been shot down time and time again. 2A isn't about what kind of hardware you may or may not have (and it mentions nothing about hunting), it's about defense--read the wording, and you will see security and freedom for the state written right into it.

As for reliance on cops, remember, Blacksburg has an armed PD. But it didn't keep Psycho Cho from ruining 50 lives this past Monday.

Jumping out west, Will Lewis of WWC's Collegian admonishes us not to let emotionalism drive the gun debate.

Out at Arizona, you have four letters to The Wildcat's editor regarding gun issues. Three express shock at just the notion of allowing guns on campus, and go so far as to say they would make no difference in averting another VT shooting. Only one advocates gun safety--and by that, I mean responsible gun ownership--as a measure to increase campus security.

One of the antis really put on a display of ivory-tower arrogance, basically painting gun owners and 2A advocates as something less than lofty as the chattering class. I personally take offense at that. I hold more degrees than this bozo, speak more languages, and have owned a total of five firearms in my life. How's that for being a "brute?"

More to come later...gotta run for now

1 comment:

FatWhiteMan said...

My favorite is the idiot from The Athenian that says the 2A only counts for "muskets, knives and cannons" because that is all that existed when it was written. Using his same argument then, the freedom of the press does not apply to radio, TV or the Internet but only to ink, paper and press. The others didn't exist when it was written.

Where can I get my cannon anyway?