In closing: Until pro-gun advocates collectively step up to the podium and produce a viable argument as to not mandating universal background checks; criminal and mental health. Limiting children’s access to firearms; restricting the admittance of firearms to schools and school zones, outside of law enforcement. And, agreeing to the registration and or the restriction of a certain class of weapons, the United States of America will remain locked in a never-ending debate.If you read his articles, we all know that no argument made nor any evidence presented will be considered 'viable' and will be dismissed off-hand. He has made up his mind that it is those in support of constitutional rights that need to give up their pieces of the pie no matter how ineffectual, unrelated or downright stupid the proposed laws are.
But that's OK. Just like attendance at the rallies, the majority of responders are pro-gun.
More on the rally at TBFKASIH and GunFreeZone
8 comments:
Yeah, that's pretty much how I interpreted it as well.
From the (second) "article":
Mr. Blair is unaware of the fact that this Examiner is a long past member of the N.R.A., and is familiar with all categories of bolt and semiautomatic series riffles.
By all means, Mr. McCants, please share with us your extensive knowledge of these "riffles."
Holy crap that guy can't write.
Unless he can learn the proper use of; semicolons. Also periods; I don't think my brain can parse his crap.,
By the way, before one dismisses the "riffles" as a typo (of which I make plenty), note that he makes the very same "typo" in the very next sentence:
Marc L. of Vancouver is a pro-gun rights advocate that fails to present a compelling reason to continue the manufacture and distribute [sic] of high powered, high capacity, semiautomatic assault style riffles.
First off, his grammar is atrocious. What editor allowed that through? Second, and more importantly, this is one of the most honest statements I've heard in a long while from an "authorized journalist." He thinks what he is saying means 'gun-owners are the problem.' His actual words say 'Until you give us everything we ask for, we are going to continue tying knots in the legislative system.' Third, to his mindset: in his mind, a law is justified unless it can be proven otherwise. The American Experiment, however, seems to be originally founded on the ideal that no law is acceptable until substantially proven to be necessary and justifiable.
I think I'm going to start using the "My right to own whatever firearms I can buy/make comes from Mr. Charles Darwin."
Maybe THEN they'll get it?
Refuse to read his drivel when his primary point is we have to provide proof why our rights should not be infringed.
How about if this author provides some proof on how he is not retarded and Constitutionally-ignorant before we let him pen another word?
I'm with Braden Lynch here. The First Amendment was written long ago by men who never dreamed that electricity could do the things it does, or of machinery that could replicate newspaper opinion pieces and send them to thousands of homes every day. Therefore the First Amendment was never intended to apply to such communication devices and this- this "author" who writes like a graduate from a journaling exercise in some new age psychobabble feel-good program should provide proof he's not a retard and actually knows something about constitutional law before he can so much as press "enter".
Never mind the misspelling, he refers to a commenter as a "long past member of the NRA". Holy handgun control, call the cardinals, we have a communication from beyond the grave! My Father is a long past member of the NRA; he's been dead 23 years.
We should call him "Mr. Riffle Pfiffle."
Post a Comment