Scary creepy NRA

[ruger1800]

All the more reason to join the nra, guess I'm a life member of the scary creepy club.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/13/is-the-n-r-a-un-american/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

 

[cobber]

One of the Editors' picks:

I feel the need to comment on the continued belief that the American Revolution was fought against tyranny. It was not. Reasonable taxes were put in place to pay for the protection of North American during the French and Indian War. The same taxes Britain had been paying for decades to cover the expense of an empire. When Britain asked the colonies to pay their fair share, the colonists refused. Now, this is not to say the colonists didn't deserve the representation in parliament they were lacking. They did. However. such a disagreement could have been solved in a much more peaceful way.

Simply astonishing. Someone didn't study their history, apparently.

Waitaminnit. The Op-Ed was published in 2013. And I was lured into commenting. Oh well...

Take it for what it's worth, the top comment in Readers' Picks got 329 thumbs up. I think there are more NRA members in Martinsville...

 

[atvdave]

So he thinks we are un-American cause we want to defend our constitution? this guy is

 

[BiscuitNaBasket]

I read this while taking a dump. This turd's for you Stanley Fish.

 

[sharkey]

I read this while taking a dump. This turd's for you Stanley Fish.

So you held one in your hand, while depositing one in the bowl!

 

[ghostdncr]

Curious how the 1st amendment is so vigorously upheld by these folks, don't you think? Perhaps it's just my creepy, scary way of thinking, but without the teeth provided by the 2nd, what, exactly, ensures continuity of the 1st? From about halfway through the story:

The second response cuts deeper: “We live in a Republic Steve … majority rules is a problem indeed” (Buck Harmon). Harmon is invoking the familiar distinction between a democracy and a republic. In a democracy the majority determines what the law is and could, at least theoretically, take away the rights of individuals for the sake of the “public good.” In a republic, majority will is held in check by constitutional guarantees that forbid legislation encroaching on individual rights even if 51 percent or 95 percent of the population favors it. (For example, Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of expression.)​

Help me understand, please. Is there some substantial amount of difference between "...shall pass no law abridging" and "...shall not be infringed" that's escaping my comprehension?




While the story reads like so many others written by solid left-leaning journalists, I found his closing paragraph to be mostly devoid of political posture and a rather eloquent passage describing the current state of our country:

A government founded in a revolutionary moment is always vulnerable to a determination by a zealous minority that its revolutionary ideals have been compromised by itself. When that happens, each side will engage in its favored rhetoric, one proclaiming, watch out, they’re coming for our guns, the other warning that militant right-wing nuts are preparing themselves for armed insurrection. One side will cry “tyranny”; the other will reply, “You guys are crazy.” And both will claim the title of true American. That’s where we are.​

I'm afraid our country is far too polarized on the 2nd Amendment issue to ever join hands in compromise. While hopeful the left had realized the toxicity of gun control, the events of 2013 has reinforced my belief they will never rest until all of us are totally disarmed. It's gonna be tooth and nail from here on out, boys and girls.

 

[SouthernStar25]

I read this while taking a dump. This turd's for you Stanley Fish.

TMI -- but wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment.

 

[2A_Tom]

This lib is a loon. This loon is a lib.

Oh whatever.

Can you say incoherent?