Another anti-Second Amendment columnist who doesn't get it


PDA






Lobotomy Boy
April 19, 2007, 01:37 PM
Howard Fineman from Newsweek: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18161645/site/newsweek/

We should give this a good read to see where the anti movement is heading. Judging from Fineman's slavish devotion to mythos over logos, their arguments will be so lacking in logic that they will be easy to destroy.

If you enjoyed reading about "Another anti-Second Amendment columnist who doesn't get it" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
jojosdad
April 19, 2007, 02:13 PM
I think he makes a lot of positive points for us, among them the fact that the Dems he talked to know that gun control fatal for their candidates.
He also provides this great quote, which sums up a lot of what I feel: The right to bear arms means more than its literal words imply: it means a way of life and thinking, involving independence, protection of land, and suspicion of federal—or all government—authority.
He never explains why he thinks these are bad things though. Maybe he's a gunnie in disguise?

El Tejon
April 19, 2007, 02:19 PM
Independence, protection of land and suspicion of all government is what founded this country.

Lobotomy Boy
April 19, 2007, 02:23 PM
I took his lack of explanation to mean that he is either unaware of or in denial about the complete lack of logic in his argument.

El Tejon
April 19, 2007, 02:39 PM
LB, I believe it is more of a cultural bias of his East Coast upbringing. In Washington D.C. suspicion of goverment is heresy.

If you read the article again, you can see that it's a lament of the Eloi. "Woe, to us, if only you backward hicks would surrender your rights and allow the elite to rule you."

PennsyPlinker
April 19, 2007, 02:53 PM
I just sent him this email. It will be interesting to see if I get a response.

Dear Mr. Fineman

I just finished reading your article on not holding one’s breath waiting for gun control. I am sure you are getting many emails on both sides of the issue. I am a gun owner. I have had guns in my possession since I was a boy, receiving my first rifle in 1970. I hope that statement does not cause you to hit the delete button, but I want you to know my perspective from the beginning.

I don’t think anyone can deny that what happened in VA is a terrible thing. But politics aside, what can be done to prevent it from happening again? Can you honestly say gun control works? I know you have the impression that it is easy to buy guns in VA, and perhaps it is, but permit me to make the following observations. There are many people in VA who obey the law in buying and maintaining their guns. They obey the law in applying for a permit to carry them. Those people further obey either laws or private rules which state they cannot carry their guns on certain grounds – like the grounds of VA Tech. On the other hand, there was one man who did not obey the law.

I submit to you that if more laws are created, those who are already obeying the existing laws will strive to obey the new laws as well, regardless of the burden it places upon them. But what about that one guy? And make no mistake, there will be another guy sooner or later who feels the need to slaughter as many of his fellow human beings as possible. Who is going to stop him?

The current system is not working. People cannot generate warnings fast enough, the police cannot respond in time, and there are just too many variables in the entire equation. People are going to continue to die at the hands of that one guy who is not going to obey any law here on earth. So why not change the system? I know you are against guns and gun ownership. It is easy enough to see in the way you write. But why not give it a chance? Pick an area of the country where concealed carry laws permit people to own and carry guns about in the general population - any area. Do you see the kind of attack we see in gun free zones? The answer is no, you do not. The kind of person who is going to do what we saw at VT is a coward, or at least smart enough to know to avoid others armed as he is. He is not going to start randomly attacking people who might be carrying guns. So he goes to the barrel where the fish are, where he knows there is no way to fight back.

Perhaps if people had been allowed to carry their own guns on campus, this would not have happened. I know you are concerned about bloodbaths and shootouts, but look at the rest of normal society. You don’t see it happening there. Perhaps the guy would have been scared off, perhaps not. But one thing we know for sure – people who have no way to defend themselves have no choice but to die. If this guy had met up with someone else who had a gun, the outcome might have been very different.

I thank you for taking the time to read this, and hey, if you want to go shooting, send me an email, and I will be glad to host you for a day. I would love to show you that a lot of us gun owners are normal, everyday people with normal lives.

PP

Lobotomy Boy
April 19, 2007, 03:30 PM
Excellent response, PP! Thank you for taking the time and effort to send the author a reasoned response. I did not respond because I was too annoyed to be reasonable. I've settled down a bit. Could you please post an email address where we can send Mr. Fineman letters that are as well-reasoned (hopefully)?

This is a perfect example of how we can effectively protect our Constitutional rights.

obxned
April 19, 2007, 03:38 PM
Please remind this gentleman about what happened in Germany right after they enacted gun control in the '30's.

Or in Russia, or China, or a dozen other countries where citizens were disarmed.

Lobotomy Boy
April 19, 2007, 03:43 PM
While references to Nazis and Communists are accurate, I believe they will make a letter much less productive than the carefully thought out piece posted above. The general public sees words like "Nazi" and "Communist" and immediately dismisses the writer as a nut-job member of the lunatic fringe.

grampster
April 19, 2007, 03:53 PM
Anti's are not deterred by facts. They are not interested in facts. Anti's operate in a limbo state and don't want to be nudged from that position of comfort. If you listen closely to what they say, their logic is skewed and they are seldom in possession of facts. They don't even take the time to even know about what they abhor.

Having said that, keep on pounding them with facts. Keep on pounding them with logic. Invite them to shoot. Make them listen to you by remaining calm and knowledgeable. Every once in awhile we get a convert. The rest of the time they remain fearful of our position and like most timid folks, don't have the courage to stand up for their conviction. That's right. They are timid. That's why they never ascribe to action, only conversation.

PennsyPlinker
April 19, 2007, 04:25 PM
Thanks LB! His email address is right there on the article, just under his name at the top.

Lobotomy Boy
April 19, 2007, 05:04 PM
My letter to Mr. Fineman:

Dear Mr. Fineman:

While I respect your Constitutional right to express yourself, I feel it necessary to point out some glaring lapses in the logic in the premise of your article entitled: “Gun Control? Don’t Hold Your Breath.”

The primary problem I have with your thesis is that you use the recent tragic events in Virginia to attempt to drum up support for more laws pertaining to firearms when the laws already in place did nothing to prevent the tragedy. The logic in your argument is so circular as to be sublime.

Let’s look at this rationally. The perpetrator of the crime broke at least two laws: carrying a concealed weapon without a permit and taking a human life. That second offense illustrates that this man wasn’t deterred by the most fundamental of all laws, one so universal it is found in most religious texts: the prohibition against the taking of human life. Yet your proposed solution is to impose even more laws. The only people who will be affected by your proposed solution are law-abiding gun owners, because, by their very definition, they abide by the laws. Since they abide by the laws, as implied by the adjective “law-abiding,” they are not committing crimes. The very definition of a criminal is one who does not abide by the law. If someone doesn’t abide by the most basic law of all societies—the prohibition against the taking of another’s life—why would you ever expect such a person to abide by some minor statute concerning the tool used for that heinous act? Your argument, such as it is, is to punish those who don’t break the law for the actions of those who do break the law. Implementing your solution would be akin to incarcerating Angela Merkel for the atrocities committed by Adolf Hitler.

I don’t expect you to respond to this because, in my personal experience, opposition to gun ownership is more like a religion than a well-reasoned position, and when it comes to debating matters of religion, logic and reason play very small roles. Still, I felt compelled to try and penetrate the veil of dogma through which you view this issue by pointing out a couple of facts that, according to recent polls, the majority of Americans are starting to see as self evident.

If you enjoyed reading about "Another anti-Second Amendment columnist who doesn't get it" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!