They were not there "to debate." They were there to insult, to resort to the childish tactic of questioning the manhood of the open carriers, and to chastise them to "get a life" in a song written especially to attack the gun rights advocates. In other words, these "community leaders" were there to stir up crowd ugliness against a minority they disapprove of. [More]Today's Gun Rights Examiner column looks at prejudice, ignorance and official arrogance in an affluent beach community--ostensibly from the very people who would condemn such attitudes when they are politically incorrect.
Share the link?
2 comments:
"opined that what I was doing was "not free speech."(!!) He told me that questions were reserved for the press. [A paradigm many in the press find wholly acceptable, by the way.]
I responded that I was editor of this modest journal. He told me I did not have "legitimate credentials." "
And if you were from a conservative/libertarian major media outlet like the Washington Times, I bet those credentials wouldn't be legitimate enough either.
Our having guns or informed opinions doesn't serve the State.
With everything that implies.
Put this together with the government kidnapping of a baby in New Hampshire -- the father hadn't completed "Stop the Violence" class, owns a handgun (allegedly caught carrying it concealed without the necessary government permission slip), a rifle and a Taser, and kinda feels good about that Bill of Rights thing --
My father AND stepfather were alcoholics and not too bright, and could get violent. There were no domestic violence programs then, but the question of whether there were guns in the house never entered into it at all. That was irrelevant to the issue of good or bad parenting. So was their political voting and contributing. We looked down on Russia for that sort of thing. We can't any more.
Post a Comment