The Second Amendment itself is debatable. But my position is the same as it was before this tragic week: I support a ban on all privately held handguns, period. In fact, I believe the manufacturing of handguns for private use should be outlawed.That's the "liberal" position according to USA Today. What do the antis call that? "Reasonable gun control"?
Here's what they'd have us believe is the "conservative" counterpunch:
As for the assault-weapons ban, life went on for the 10 years that the ban was in place, so I'm not averse to reauthorizing it.Neat trick by the "authorized journalists"--if you fall outside their parameters of a total ban on handguns and a total ban on semiautomatics, why you're an extremist!
Cal Thomas, you are a hollow fraud.
At least a fleeting mention of VTech's disarmament policy made it into in the "debate."
[Via 45superman]
5 comments:
once again the unsupported "sporting" clause the occurs nowhere in the constitution rears it's ugly head. Of course, nobody there can bother to point out that one unelected unaccountable person has NEVER been given any authority to determine WHAT guns are covered in "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"
damn, I guess I'll have to register over there.
Bottom line is that the media wants easy solutions and doesn't want to actually do work, so they set up a debate between a "liberal" and a "conservative", thinking that that is good enough.
Cal Thomas is a conservative, but guns aren't his area. He's much more capable in the realms of abortion or American culture or foreign relations. So USA Today, negligently or maliciously, puts him up against some stereotypical liberal, and the resulting "debate" is a disgrace.
The media wants to sell papers, not actually approach the sticky issue of what would have actually worked. Thomas should have stayed out of this one and let a real pro-gun person take up the argument.
Tucker Carlson nails C. McCarthy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U
Carlson asks a good question. Three more good questions to ask Mrs. McCarthy: 1) What is the difference between a "clip" and "magazine"? 2) Where are you getting your crime data from? 3) Shouldn't one be at least moderately familiar with something if one is seeking to legislate it?
A better question to have asked would have been "Didn't your husband die as a result of being helpless and unarmed in the face of a murderous criminal, why would you want more of the same for more people?
The Second Amendment is not "debatable", unless the English Language is debatable. I guess that is why 'PC' is such an important part of their culture.
Even so, a study of the history behind the amendment reveals even more clearly that it means what it says.
Attention Left:
1. Deconstructionism isn't a valid method to interpret the Constitution.
2. Stop taking "collective rights" from Marx's writings and attempting to paste it over certain parts of the Bill of Rights. Yeah, it's really obvious.
Post a Comment