http://stevebussey.com/wp/2012/12/bob-costas/
So,
yet another thug from professional sports officially entered the ranks
of “criminal” and murdered his girlfriend. Thankfully, he saved us all
the spectacle of yet another “trial of the century” a la Casey Anthony
or O.J. Simpson and put his gun to his own head. And I say that all not
caring if his friends and family considered him a “nice guy” before the
murder or if he had “problems” growing up.
But after the murder-suicide sports caster Bob Costas used his Monday Night Football platform to preach the political position of gun control and much of America is up in arms – pardon the pun – and rightfully so.
Here are the facts of the matter:
The first part of the 2nd Amendment – a well-regulated militia… – is irrelevant because it neither prescribes nor proscribes anything. It has no affirmative or negative force whatsoever. The second part of the 2nd Amendment, however, is quite clear; the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed and the Supreme Court, not that we need them to explain our rights and law to us, has ruled it is an individual and not a state or militia right.
It is not a matter of people needing an automatic or semi-automatic weapon but a matter of their right to have them.
It is not a matter of lightly armed civilians not realistically being able to protect themselves from a government that now has stealth bombers and armed drones. It is about their unalienable right to try. Besides, just ask the South Vietnamese communist, the Taliban and al-Qaeda about fighting the U.S. Military with only light weapons. Some of them have been extremely successful.
It isn’t about the 2nd Amendment being “outdated” because even if that’s your position the fact remains that it still exists and you must amend the Constitution to change that.
It is not about the number of weapons any one person owns or the ease with which they acquire them because those issues are not addressed by the Constitution except in so far as the 2nd Amendment quite clearly says “shall not be infringed.”
The entire gun control argument from leftists such as Bob Costas is based on lies and hypocrisy, including those uttered by CNN’s Piers Morgan the other night when he said our constitutional framers were talking about muskets in the 2nd Amendment and not AK-47′s, but he will not agree then, in expounding on his argument, that in protecting freedom of the press those same framers must have been talking only about manually operated printing presses and not modern automated printing presses, television or radio.
On the other hand of the argument, it is a neat little exercise in rhetoric when conservatives point out how many lives are saved each year by gun owners, or how guns don’t kill people – people kill people, etc. but really unnecessary and a little counter productive.
When gun rights advocates engage in those types of arguments they buy into the gun control advocates’ position that control is about violence in general and saving lives in particular, and it isn’t.
The argument is only about constitutionally protected unalienable rights and nothing else. Trying to beat a progressive at their own argument is actually buying into their premise. And if you do that, novice onlookers – voters – have to decide whose statistics to believe and they will err on the side of caution, in thier minds, i.e. fewer guns must necessarily mean less crime; it seems axiomatic to them – common sense.
Do NOT buy into their premise for debate!
Words and phrases matter, as does the nature of the debate. People in favor of gun ownership should not allow themselves to be drawn into the statistical debate but instead force the debate toward the Constitution and unalienable rights. Even a novice understands rights. They should also not allow themselves to be classified as “gun advocates” because they are not. They are, we are, advocates of unalienable rights – advocates of liberty. Advocating for the unalienable right of gun ownership is semantically and philosophically different than being a “gun advocate.” It is like the difference between pro-life and anti-abortion. Subconsciously one has a positive connotation and one negative.
But having said all of that, I think conservative Americans just need to start calling people like Bob Costas and Piers Morgan liars and despots. That kind of makes the point and forces them into a defensive position. It’s time we stopped playing nicey-nice and got serious about saving our republic.
Bob Costas
So,
yet another thug from professional sports officially entered the ranks
of “criminal” and murdered his girlfriend. Thankfully, he saved us all
the spectacle of yet another “trial of the century” a la Casey Anthony
or O.J. Simpson and put his gun to his own head. And I say that all not
caring if his friends and family considered him a “nice guy” before the
murder or if he had “problems” growing up.But after the murder-suicide sports caster Bob Costas used his Monday Night Football platform to preach the political position of gun control and much of America is up in arms – pardon the pun – and rightfully so.
Here are the facts of the matter:
The first part of the 2nd Amendment – a well-regulated militia… – is irrelevant because it neither prescribes nor proscribes anything. It has no affirmative or negative force whatsoever. The second part of the 2nd Amendment, however, is quite clear; the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed and the Supreme Court, not that we need them to explain our rights and law to us, has ruled it is an individual and not a state or militia right.
It is not a matter of people needing an automatic or semi-automatic weapon but a matter of their right to have them.
It is not a matter of lightly armed civilians not realistically being able to protect themselves from a government that now has stealth bombers and armed drones. It is about their unalienable right to try. Besides, just ask the South Vietnamese communist, the Taliban and al-Qaeda about fighting the U.S. Military with only light weapons. Some of them have been extremely successful.
It isn’t about the 2nd Amendment being “outdated” because even if that’s your position the fact remains that it still exists and you must amend the Constitution to change that.
It is not about the number of weapons any one person owns or the ease with which they acquire them because those issues are not addressed by the Constitution except in so far as the 2nd Amendment quite clearly says “shall not be infringed.”
The entire gun control argument from leftists such as Bob Costas is based on lies and hypocrisy, including those uttered by CNN’s Piers Morgan the other night when he said our constitutional framers were talking about muskets in the 2nd Amendment and not AK-47′s, but he will not agree then, in expounding on his argument, that in protecting freedom of the press those same framers must have been talking only about manually operated printing presses and not modern automated printing presses, television or radio.
On the other hand of the argument, it is a neat little exercise in rhetoric when conservatives point out how many lives are saved each year by gun owners, or how guns don’t kill people – people kill people, etc. but really unnecessary and a little counter productive.
When gun rights advocates engage in those types of arguments they buy into the gun control advocates’ position that control is about violence in general and saving lives in particular, and it isn’t.
The argument is only about constitutionally protected unalienable rights and nothing else. Trying to beat a progressive at their own argument is actually buying into their premise. And if you do that, novice onlookers – voters – have to decide whose statistics to believe and they will err on the side of caution, in thier minds, i.e. fewer guns must necessarily mean less crime; it seems axiomatic to them – common sense.
Do NOT buy into their premise for debate!
Words and phrases matter, as does the nature of the debate. People in favor of gun ownership should not allow themselves to be drawn into the statistical debate but instead force the debate toward the Constitution and unalienable rights. Even a novice understands rights. They should also not allow themselves to be classified as “gun advocates” because they are not. They are, we are, advocates of unalienable rights – advocates of liberty. Advocating for the unalienable right of gun ownership is semantically and philosophically different than being a “gun advocate.” It is like the difference between pro-life and anti-abortion. Subconsciously one has a positive connotation and one negative.
But having said all of that, I think conservative Americans just need to start calling people like Bob Costas and Piers Morgan liars and despots. That kind of makes the point and forces them into a defensive position. It’s time we stopped playing nicey-nice and got serious about saving our republic.
No comments:
Post a Comment