In today's permissive society, modern conservatives have become a target rich environment for the Alinskyite, whose 13th rule ("Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.") has been getting a thorough workout against the 2nd Amendment. But as with ill-mannered children, their getting away with what they want, depends upon your willingness to play along with them. If you don't, if you focus them upon what they are trying not to mention, if you discipline their 'facts' with a little bit of knowledge... it can all become very embarrassing for the poor little lefties, very quickly. And for people accustomed to thinking of themselves as the smartest people in the room... that tends to lead to some very entertaining hissy fits (see Piers Morgan... there's certainly no better reason to see him). No one who thinks that they're outsmarting you, much likes being forced to own up to the bill of goods that they were hoping to get you to buy for them, free of charge.
The trick to getting this sort of free entertainment, is to listen to their statements - less for what they're saying, and more for what they are trying so very hard not to say... which is,surprise, what they want you to own up to as being discredited by what they are saying.
Let's take a recent example and see if you can spot, in this prime piece of putzery from the uber-leftist Thom Hartmann (as the failed Air America host is brought to you by RT... that'd be 'Russia Today'... Pravda... hellooo)), what he is working so hard NOT to mention... but which he really, really, wants you to think of as having been discredited by what he is saying.
See if you can spot it:
Pure Evil
"The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote. "
Did you notice what he doesn't mention?
If you listen to the whole video, you'll hear the same thing repeatedly not mentioned throughout his entire piece. Yep, that's right, he never mentions what the 2nd Amendment means.
He doesn't mention whether or not it is a valid Right, he doesn't mention whether or not it is a 'useful' Right, he certainly doesn't mention whether or not those 'slave patrol militias' would have been too
I have a friend who disagrees with the point I made in my last post, that you shouldn't answer disingenuous questioners, such as Piers Morgan, when you are aware that their questions are far less interested in your answers, than in making you look foolish for having answered them.
While my friend Lloyd agrees with me that the important point is to understand what the 2nd Amendment refers to, and more importantly why (no slouch on the constitution, his proposed constitutional 'fix' (on the legislative end anyway), 'Madison's lost Amendment', is the only promising one I've seen (though I don't want a constitutional conv.)), he is critical of pursuing a 'strategy' that doesn't give them the easy answers they are asking for. He sees no sense in doing as Dana Loesh did, when she recently refused to take Piers Morgan's 'tank question' bait, answering him only that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to bear arms.
Lloyd replies, in part, that he would have nooo problem,
"... answering Mr. Morgan's rather absurd question and pointing out that is not really the issue here.
But I guess my "strategy" is not clever enough. Anyone who can READ can quote the words of the 2nd amendment."
, and he feels confident that, having answered him, he would then be able to get on to discussing his points afterwards. Which, IMHO, is ridiculously naive position to take, when you are dealing with someone who's only reason for'discussing' the matter is so as to dismiss it - and you - as quickly and embarrassingly (for you) as is possible.
Happily, we have the chance to see two very different examples of these two approaches in action,
Gee... a lunatic murders children at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton in Connecticut, and it's now necessary for the NRA to justify our Individual Rights. Shocker. Here's one off the top, from CNN "After Newtown, the NRA goes silent"
"The NRA did not return messages seeking comment on Monday. A representative for Facebook told CNN they were not able to speak for the NRA and do not comment on organization's actions on their own pages."
In our collective consciousness we seem to have allowed central casting to award the part of "The Law" to to be played character actors who specialize in wimpiness like Don Knotts's Barney Fife, or the oiliness of a more modern Grima Wormtongue... or, splitting the difference, a SOBbing John Boehner. The effect has been to sap our laws of having anything like the force of law behind their words.
They're just not taken seriously. Lately, it doesn't seem as if our first ten amendments to the Constitution even rise to the level of the 10 suggestions. Go figure.
You mean that a culture that educates their children to learn useful skills, rather than to understand what is Right and Wrong, doesn't take meaningful words seriously, unless they're delivered in a skillful manner that captures their attention?
What a surprise.
I suggest rebooting the franchise.
How about... if the NRA pays for new advertising, casting the wizard Gandalf to read the 2nd Amendment in darkened halls of congress, in the manner of his facing down the Balrog in the mines of Moria? Now with that in mind, picture Gandalf in congress, his voice and demeanor full of the sort of conviction millions have seen him express with "You ... Shall... NOT pass!", as he thunders out the 2nd Amendment,
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Eh? Whatcha think?
And no need to stop there, perhaps the NRA &... well... some other interested party, could get together for some cross promotional opportunities, and pay him to read the 1st Amendment too... I mean seriously, the language is there, we just need someone, someone with some solid screen presence, some gravitas, to bring those words to life in the same manner that Ian McKellen brought Gandalf to life in the minds of millions:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
That'd be something, wouldn't it? Maybe if we bring some drama to the law, people would think of the laws and of our liberty, half as seriously as they do the movies.
What, are you complaining that I'm not taking this 'latest issue', (CRISIS!!! NO MORE!!! SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!!!) seriously enough? Oh? Well how about you tell me why I should be taking this latest assault upon all of our individual rights, any more seriously than that of a casting decision? I should behave as if their hysterical words claiming power over our lives, have more meaning than those meaningful words which were written into law to defend our right to live our own lives?
Oh come on, give it a shot (!)... my comment box is functional, spill your guts.
While you're at it, I tell you what, try telling me why any organization, be it the NRA or any other, should be considered by lawmakers and the media, as having to defend and justify ANY of our Rights, against the government and the media's desire to abridge them? For our own good?
And you want me to take your latest 'crisis' seriously? Excuse me for a moment while I reach for some rotten tomatoes. Don't move now....
