Still, if the Smutty Professor would step out of the booth and promise to keep his trench coat buttoned, and also not to touch us, perhaps we could give his ideas some consideration. What would happen if we took his "hands-on" approach and treated guns like porn? [More]Today's second Gun Rights Examiner column gives The Smutty Professor all the serious consideration he deserves.
Help me sprea...uh...promote this one? I'd like to see the name stic...uh...attach itself.
7 comments:
My email to the professor:
I struggled thru your article on the second amendment (in a barely successful attempt to not vomit). Your words are proof of an old truism: An expert is someone who knows more and more, about less and less.
At the end of the day professor, when all the classroom theorems have been exhausted, and all the political profundities have been uttered, there remains a single task. Someone must send some mother's son to take my firearm away from me. There are literally millions of unwashed, bitter clingers who feel exactly as I do.
We’ve been pushed far enough. There will be blood.
One last word on the topic: Were you aware that on April 19, 1775 British troops attempted at act on an order to disarm the militia in and around the townships of Concord and Lexington ? It's very telling how that all turned out isn't it? An attempt to ignore inalienable rights got the entire ball rolling. Another attempt could very well have a similar effect.
Care to have your own say:
darrell.miller@uc.edu
Very good of you to devote an Examiner Commentary to this. Also good of you to link to Eugene Volokh's academic critique.
So, I wonder what fallout will ensue?
Dunno--I'm just trying to pick a fight.
If I can get "The Smutty Professor" tag to stick to this dweeb, I'll be happy.
David,
I was rolling on the floor laughing. "Smutty Professor" indeed. Ha Ha Ha!
Best Wishes,
PolyKahr
Well, if men like him want to make *ahem* "comparisons", then by their own logic, they secretly wish they had vaginas.
Hah, ...
"If I can get "The Smutty Professor" tag to stick to this dweeb, I'll be happy."
I think you got under his skin. Thanks for letting us know with your update "II" blog entry above. I have provided my own comments.
"...the issue of Second Amendment scope..."
Nice idea, but the Smutty Professor has a backwards, inverted, upside down view of it. The 2nd Amendment is about how limited the government's powers are by the prohibition of even mere infringement. The anti's don't want to talk about that, so they turn it around and talk about how individual freedom is to be limited.
However, the 2nd is a limit on government, not on the individual. Let's talk about how "shall not be infringed" limits government. Otherwise, by the end of the conversation, those anti-rights weasels will rationalize every restriction they ever wanted. Restrictions are infringements. They don't get any. None. Not a one.
The anti’s want a conversation on how the 2nd Amendment (in their imagination) limits individual freedom; we need a conversation on how the actual words of the 2nd Amendment define a strict limit of government power. We have to force them to deal with reality. We cannot allow them to define the conversation on their own trumped up terms.
Anybody who tries to define the 2nd Amendment in terms of limits on individual rights deserves to be corrected with a kick in the balls. It’s a strong limit on government. Either we’re talking about that or we’re talking about something besides the 2nd Amendment.
Post a Comment