Dick Cavett has been writing a series of OP-ED's about guns. He is taking a very condescending and superior tack in these articles. While simultaneously parroting long-debunked arguments, numbers, and positions. I highly recommend logging on and informing him of his errors.
Here is one of my many replies to his OP-ED
Dick Cavett said:I took my treasure back to my hotel and spent an hour or more in front of a full-length mirror being, alternately, Conrad Veidt, Ivan Triesault, Eduardo Ciannelli, Walter Slezak and probably 10 other of those splendid European actors who always seemed to be playing Nazi officers in the war movies of the ’40s and ’50s.
And you might as well know the worst: I slept with it.
I think the degree to which this resembles a sexual confession is not entirely coincidental. Learned (two-syllable pronunciation) papers and studies exist on the sexuality of guns, focusing always on the rather obvious phallic resemblance of the hand-held gun and the male organ; comfortable grip, extension, ejection, consequences of improper use … the list goes on.
Here is one of my many replies to his OP-ED
SuperNaut said:I'm not surprised that someone who fetishizes an inanimate object would think that the same object has supernatural power to cause crime. It isn't the fault of the person pulling the trigger, it is the talismanic gun.
Dividing violent crime into "gun crime" and "other crime" is transparent manipulative rhetorical sophistry . Concern over the manner of death rather than just the death itself exposes the bias and agenda of the typical anti-Constitutionalist.
"But I love the Constitution" the communitarians deviously protest. "We aren't going to take away your guns" the politicians protest, while simultaneously taking them away. "This is for your own good" the social engineers say, while pretending that the previous assault weapons ban actually worked.
Rainbows, Unicorns, and Magical Thinking disguised as progress.