Stanley Crouch wants to edify us about what he calls "The gun lobby's flawed logic."
A hard fact leers before us: on the subject of guns, constitutional meaning and misinterpretation have been mixed together for so long that far too many people think our Constitution advocates things that it does not.Never mind the rather . . . interesting image of a fact leering--I'm more concerned with his idea that the Constitution "advocates" anything, as if the document on which our entire government is based, the codified guarantee of our liberty, has no more power than a suggestion or request.
Confusion over history and the law are not new, but our trouble with gun ownership truly stands apart from the rules of how things are usually done.I'd say that anyone who has "trouble with gun ownership" has troubles that he is just going to have to deal with.
This is the part that really amused me, though:
Our attempts to create a mature and rational gun policy have not gone well. The lobby representing the NRA has had so much sway over Congress that the politicians run for cover rather than get on the lobby's enemies list. If they do, reelection becomes much harder.The NRA has a lobby representing it? I thought we were to believe that the NRA is itself the "gun lobby"--now we have lobbies representing lobbies?
The trouble has nothing to do with the right to hunt or the right to own a weapon for self-protection.On that, we can agree. Unfortunately, the agreement doesn't last long.
The trouble is that any change is interpreted with the logic of a survivalist.Apparently, the "logic" of someone not concerned with survival is more worthy of respect.
In the end, he settles on a Joyce Foundation-like strategy.
Perhaps money is the real answer. I think that Russell Simmons, Arianna Huffington, George Soros and other limousine liberals should gather their forces and raise enough money from the wealthy who are actually interested in our civilization. With enough money, they just might be able to put a hole in the bucket of the gun lobby.Apparently, Crouch is unaware how much money folks like that are already throwing into forcible citizen disarmament advocacy.
Stumble it!
9 comments:
He keep using that word . . . I do no think it means what he think it means . . . .
Seriously, the tired cliche he was looking for was a fact that "looms" before him.
That would certainly make a lot more sense.
I'm a little disappointed, though--I was kinda hoping someone would come up with a picture of a leering fact.
Stanley Krouch has some decent points there, but what you seem to be doing is purposely misunderstanding him in order to mock and ridicule. I happen to agree, as do many, that the Constitituion does not guarantee the liberty to amass personal arsenals. And I agree that the gun lobby has too much influence, just look at the turnaround recently made by the Obama gang. What you're trying to say is that we're all so stupid we don't know the difference between gun lobby and NRA. That's not right, speaking for myself anyway.
And I agree that the gun lobby has too much influence, just look at the turnaround recently made by the Obama gang.Oh, don't worry--I'm sure the "Obama Gang" (I kinda like that) will be back, trying to subvert both the Constitution and the will of the people.
What you're trying to say . . . I'm not trying to say anything, pal--I fucking said it, and the last thing I need is for you to try to tell me what I'm "trying" to say--especially when you can't get it right, anyway.
. . . is that we're all so stupid we don't know the difference between gun lobby and NRA.I didn't say a damned thing about you "all"--I pointed out Crouch's stupidity. If you want to claim that stupidity as your own, as well, that's your prerogative, but leave me the hell out of it.
Amass personal arsenals, mikeb302000? What you call an "arsenal" I call my "collection." So if I collect stamps, I'm good, but if I collect guns, I'm evil?
All the guns in the world, absent criminal intent, are harmless.
And that's criminal intent from individuals or governments.
Pointing out someone's mistakes is not misunderstanding, purposely or otherwise. I know what he's trying to say. I'm just suggesting that he might want to use the language correctly. Frankly, his and your attempts to say "keep and bear doesn't mean keep and bear, and even if it did, people means state governments!" are too old and tired to keep my interest.
that should certainly keep a eunuch busy and out of the way of sane people.
Kurt, Sorry for jumping to the conclusion that when you were criticizing Crouch you were talking to all of us anti-gun folks. But is there really a difference? Crouch wrote a fairly coherent and well-written argument supporting the gun control side of the argument. You met that with sarcasm and ridicule starting with the title of your post.
I'm calling Crouch an idiot, but I never claimed he was representative of the entire universe of forcible citizen disarmament advocates. If he is, than I suppose I am calling them all idiots, but I think some of them are a bit more bright than Crouch is.
Post a Comment