My friend Brett Joshpe has published an uncharacteristically soft-headed piece in the San Francisco Chronicle
arguing that in the wake of the massacre at Sandy Hook, conservatives
and Republicans should support what he calls “sensible” gun-control
laws. It begins with a subtext of self-congratulation (“As a
conservative and a Republican, I can no longer remain silent . . . Some
will consider it heresy,” etc.), casts aspersions of intellectual
dishonesty (arguments for preserving our traditional rights are
“disingenuous”), advances into ex homine (noting he has family in
Sandy Hook, as though that confers special status on his preferences),
fundamentally misunderstands the argument for the right to keep and bear
arms, deputizes the electorate, and cites the presence of teddy bears
as evidence for his case.
There is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment for military-style weapons, because military-style weapons are precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure our ability to oppose enemies foreign and domestic, a guarantee against disorder and tyranny. Consider the words of Supreme Court justice Joseph Story — who was, it bears noting, appointed to the Court by the guy who wrote the Constitution:
More @ NRO
Talk about intellectual dishonesty http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxRlpRcorEU
ReplyDeletePrecisely. I posted a different version of this a few days ago. No rebuttal possible.:)
Delete