Asking Diane Feinstein if she would limit First Amendment rights like she would the Second was the perfect opportunity for a great come back. While I appreciated her lecturing Cruz about not being lectured: something always needed when confronted with arrogant putzes, did I appreciate her apology latter? Not so much. Next time stand firm Diane. Stand firm.
But as far as the main course of this talking point drive crap fest, I feel like the smart kid in a less than Z tracked elementary school class… “-Z” because they ran out of letters the rest of the class was so dense…. you know: the “smart kid” who never gets chosen despite raising his hand and saying, “Pick me! Pick me!”
I would ask Mr. Ted: “Excuse me Senator, would you insist an elementary school library stock a pictorial-book version of Debbie Does Dallas? Of course not. As you well know we limit books and certain forms of speech like screaming there’s a bomb in a crowded mall. The Second Amendment doesn’t mean total, unregulated access to every and any weapon: like bazookas, or ICBMs. What part of ‘well regulated’ do you not understand? As I’m sure you know, despite all your self-righteous snark, no right is absolute.”
But she didn’t say anything like that. While I appreciate her telling this jerk how educated she is, and the horrors she’s been through: responding to the core of his weaker than watered down Jello argument was crucial. She didn’t.
Then she… apologizes?
Anyone with any common decency knows exactly who should have apologized, and it wasn’t Senator Feinstein.
I want to know… why are more leftward than Rush Limbaugh leaders so damn bad at shoving poorly framed arguments back into the arrogant faces of putzes like Ted?
Now, as I have stated before in this column, I do think banning any gun, in general, kind of like closing the door to a humongous barn once a million horses have escaped. I am more for regulating ammunition, clips, gun powder: we have the tech to put markers in gun powder, why don’t we use it? There’s nothing in the Second about not registering and limiting ammunition. Infringe away!
Now reloading ammunition to attempt to avoid such is always possible but it makes it a bit more difficult for those who wish to use guns the wrong way, same is true of clips. Gunpowder manufacturing with the required tangents (I’ve seen it spelled “tagents” too.) would be even tougher. Not impossible, but more difficult.
Those who belittle such efforts need to answer the question, “We have a choice here: make it harder on those who abuse their gun rights and commit horrible crimes, or easier. Are you really in favor of making it easier on murderers?”
That’s the best way to react to their mindless crapfest talking points. Not acting hurt, indignant and certainly not apologizing. I’m sure, due to that apology, Cruz and his defenders think he won that round. Making sure they know they lost, leave licking their wounds, is the better tactic. Ms. Feinstein acts as if Cruz cares about offending others, or his patronizing behavior. Folks like Cruz simply don’t care. It’s all about one upmanship.
Another typical gun-related talking point easily handled is “you can change a clip in two seconds.” Good luck proving that for 99.9% of those who use, or abuse, their right to have guns. I’ve changed clips before. I grew up with guns: we electrical taped two clips together when I was a teen to make the change go faster. Still: 2 seconds is a hell of a lot shorter than these talking point spewers would ever admit, and certainly not enough time for most folks to change clips.
”Senator?” (Look at watch as you say…) “1, 2… too late! You lose. Try another talking point.” Then have your peeps laugh loudly, full of mocking mirth. The more mirth, the better.
But instead they let yet another BS talking point unchallenged slide into political folklore to be quoted as if it is a proven fact.
Again: why is anyone left of Adolf Hitler or Sean Hannity, but I repeat myself… Genghis Khan or Bill O’Reilly: but I repeat myself again, so unwilling, or unable, to meet such BS talking points head on?
Just like speech is regulated to a certain extent, but is still free, the right to own certain guns could be regulated and still we could have the generally freedom to own guns. “Regulated,” not totally banned. Not every book is allowed into our schools. Not every gun should remain totally unregulated, especially not for every person.
No right is absolute, and they might have a stronger case if the Second Amendment read, “The right to own any gun, or any type of gun, by any person, shall not be infringed,” and of course if the “well regulated militia” clause didn’t limit the scope of the whole amendment.
Now is regulating the guns themselves not the wisest choice of the paths we might take, as I have already suggested?
Maybe. Maybe not. But that is another, and perhaps the most important, question.
Inspection is a column that has been written by Ken Carman for over 30 years. Inspection is dedicated to looking at odd angles, under all the rocks and into the unseen cracks and crevasses that constitute the issues and philosophical constructs of our day: places few think, or even dare, to venture.
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
All Rights Reserved