Assembly hopeful Joel Tyner has accused incumbent Assemblyman Joel Miller of telling an "outrageous falsehood" when he denied receiving money from the National Rifle Association.I'm still waiting for a politician with the stones to publicly and angrily scourge an opponent for daring to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms--and to educate their constituency on what that right means. Instead, most of these weasels take the money but then try to hush it up and hide it from the general populace.
Yeah, we see a few who go to banquets and pose with shotguns and orange vests, and equate the Second Amendment with "our hunting heritage" and the like, but I want to see someone eager and unafraid--in front of the cameras--to growl back "Go visit Dachau and then come back and tell us about 'gun control."*
And then launch into a powerful, educational and passionate advocacy of why an armed, informed and involved citizenry is the ultimate guarantor of freedom.
I have this fantasy of a president doing a televised "fireside chat" on individual rights, and turning it into a weekly address. Good Lord, can I still be that naive?
* I heard this line from former Citizens of America colleague Jim Houck.
2 comments:
Key word is probably stones. There ain't nary a one, anywhere. And if one DID show up, some @#$!^@! would show up, lay the cash on im' and he'd close up faster than your third point of contact when you see Helen Thomas on TV. It's all gone too far, damnit. There ain't no white knights. There ain't no revival. There ain't nothin' but rack and ruin, and all the high hopes,good intentions,and decent folk in the U.S. ain't gonna matter more than a pinch of owl dung to what we're headed for. Maybe after, maybe when enough blood has spilled, and all the good ones are gone, and all what's left is dazed and hearty survivors, will we get back onto anything that looks like a moral track. If'n we don't get hijacked by a bunch of lawyers and such.
David, if you are naive so am I. However, I posit that adhering to noble principle is not naive but courageous, moral, and all too rare.
In my past are some severely whipped asses that made the mistake of thinking principle and naivete were the same thing. I suspect we must witness and/or participate on a much grander scale if we are to turn this engine of liberty destruction or derail it.
Those that ridicule the tenets of liberty believe that their success so far is is the result of the stupidity and/or naivete of the populace in general. Naivete would more appropriately be applied to them. They are naive if they believe anything other than that they have not been considered important enough to be taken seriously. They are rapidly approaching the threshold where that all changes and their misconceptions will be made painfully obvious to them.
I read your article in Guns and I must say naivete is not your problem. How I know you are a genius is by how much you agree with me. :) Very few people realize that the human nature is the reason for the protections in the constitution and that as long as that hasn't changed, no amount of technological advance nor political change warrants less adhesion to its strictures.
Can you be that naive? NO! Can you be that hopeful that others live up to principles that moral free men should? Yes.
We are neither of us expectant that they will, ergo, not naive. Just damn disappointed.
Post a Comment