Last night's Boston Legal episode was every bit the liberal polemic I thought it would be.
The statistics mouthed by the actors were right out of the Brady Campaign playbook. The urbane distaste for guns was unmasked. The arguments opposing gun control were vapid, showing the writers never even attempted to understand the true reasons one might do so--and the only character opposed to gun control was a head case and buffoon.
Add to that ridiculously implausible scenarios--like bringing a loaded musket into a Boston courtroom--and the obligatory incompetent handling/accidental shots fired whenever Denny Crane gets his hands on a gun--and you have what we all should have expected.
My oldest boy said it best. They made us look like stooges.
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Your boy had it right, Dave. They succeeded in making us look bad beyond our wildest dreams ...er, nightmares. Which was, of course, the intent of these self-righteous prigs. Yet, even though Crane was about the most inept handler of a gun, and the stunt was beyond any credibility, his speech actually supported the 2A. Overall, though, this was only a slightly mitigated assault on gun owners and the Bill of Rights. It was truly APPALLING!!
How dare you speak of our overlords like that. Don't you know that they are like... way smarter than us? That is why only they should be armed...
I was not disappointed. You have it right, Dave. It was straight out of the BC playbook. Even the closing argument (which was supposed to be pro 2A) when taken in context of how it was delivered (a bumbling buffon dressed up in historical garb) was meant to make a mockery of firearm owners and their supposed decreased mental aptitude. All firearm issues aside, I am surprised that such a poorly written show with poor acting is still on the air. By the way ... who won the case? As soon as he finished delivering his "closing argument" I walked away.
The show ended with the jury still out on that case, Wild Deuce.
Which means they want us to watch next week.
I'm not plugging it here, but will probably tune in to see how they resolve it.
I remembered one other thing I forget to write about--the plaintiff's attorney mentioned automatic fire in his argument--in other words, Boston Legal followed VPC's playbook and lied to their audience, intentionally confusing firearms affected by the '94 semiauto ban with machine guns.
I believe the entire premise--being able to sue someone in civil court for actions taken or not taken in Congress--is probably so much BS--the Constitution's speech and debate clause probably would make reps immune to such suits--and the explanation they gave on the show did not seem authoritative at all...
Post a Comment