Sharp as a Marble - Should have stuck with beginners algebra

<< He's got my vote! | Home | Obama ignores the First Amendment >>

Should have stuck with beginners algebra

Anti-Rights Idiocy

Because calculus is waaaaay beyond this idiot's level

The Moral Calculus of Gun Rights

This is the second time I have seen the photograph of the jubilant young lady cheering the Supreme Court's decision on gun rights in District of Columbia v. Heller. In the photo, she holds a sign that reads ". . . Shall Not Be Infringed. Any Questions" ["A Workable Gun Law for the City," Close to Home, Sept. 21].

Well, I've seen the picture in question and I happen to agree with it. The Second Amendment clearly states "Shall not be infringed". I may get onto my brethren from time to time about using that phrase as the end all be all of arguments, but I agree with them on what it means.

I have some questions: Has she ever kissed someone she loved for the last time, jolted by the blood clots on that person's forehead that are the result of a classroom shooting? Has she ever held a grieving mother who lost her "baby" or watched a heartbroken father eloquently address the media? Has she ever comforted a parent who felt lost because an only child had been killed? Has she ever listened to a father who will never escort his daughter down the aisle or a mother who will never have grandchildren? Does she have a child who lost his best friend and she has to explain why? Has she ever seen the sadness of loss in the eyes of neighbors and friends? Has she ever found herself giving someone a reason to live every day because that person lost a loved one to gun violence?

How about I turn that around? My wife and children kiss someone every day who, had he not had a gun to defend himself, would be one of those blood spattered people she opines about. In fact, there's hundreds of stories a month available of people who defend their lives with firearms, way more than the number of high profile shootings you hear in the news.

I have had these experiences, and seeing defiance and jubilance over a ruling that fosters such anguish is difficult to bear.

This ruling fosters nothing but a rare reversal in our government to trust the people with the tools necessary to defend themselves. Jubilation is called for when the government gives back control.

As for the anguish she feels, she should turn that anger towards those who caused her that pain, not the tool they used to do it. Does this lady blame the clothing company that made the pants the thugs wore when they committed the crime? Why not?

There has to be a middle ground. We must find it so that others do not have to answer yes to my questions and be haunted forever.
LU ANN MACIULLA McNABB

No, we do not need to find middle ground. Middle ground is code speak for "you give up something for me". If Ms. McNabb truly wants "middle ground" then let's knock off half the federal gun laws (that would be 10,000 of them).

However, Ms. McNabb's calculus doesn't add up, I can't much expect her to even grasp fractions.

posted @ 9/26/2008 9:58:06 AM

Comments

Gregory Morris says:

on 9/26/2008 10:45:30 AM

(nitpick, i think that "20,000 gun law" number refers not just to "federal" gun laws...)

From now on, when someone says they want us to "compromise" or "find the middle ground", I'm going to ask what they intend to give up...

Mikee says:

on 9/26/2008 11:40:08 AM

I would suggest that a reasonable compromise would be to have only laws that affect just the violent criminal portion of the populace, while leaving nonviolent, noncriminal citizens with their rights intact. Any takers?

hecate says:

on 9/26/2008 11:47:11 AM

I like the comment that described McNabb's position as "fellatious."

Gunstar1 says:

on 9/26/2008 2:00:20 PM

... Ms. McNabb's calculus doesn't add up, I can't much expect her to even grasp fractions.

Now, now... do you not have any kids? It is you that doesn't realize that she may have difficulty solving word problems.

If you us the wrong formula to solve a word problem, you get a wrong answer, as Ms. McNabb has.

Try algebra:
x = 600,000 (Defensive gun uses, minimum... AKA 2nd amendment right)
y = 30,000 "gun deaths" (aka.. individual's feeling of anguish)
What is x in relation to y?
Answer: greater than

If that doesn't work go remedial math:
What is the highest number?
a) 30,000
b) 600,000
c) 40,000

Answer: b)
600,000 DGUs is higher than c) 40,000 vehicle deaths and a) 30,000 gun deaths

Bobby says:

on 9/26/2008 3:04:48 PM

Nice use of the school shootings.

Aint it funny how were all told we dont need self protection. we can just call the police!

To think. All the smart people at these schools.... nobody thought to call the cops?

Lyle says:

on 9/26/2008 5:39:57 PM

Middle ground. That's so rich. Lets see. Prior to 1934 there were no gun laws. Then we accepted the middle ground by allowing the NFA. Then again in 1968 we "took the middle ground" by accepting the GCA. Thousands of compromises later, we're still being asked to take the "middle ground".

We can play that game too. First, it assumes no human right, and no Constitutionals limits. Here's my starting point in the bargaining process;

Anyone who wants a weapon of any kind, gets the weapon of their choice, on demand, with plenty of ammunition, at any time, anywhere in the Union, with no parental notification, paid for with taxpayer money, and no state or local authority should be allowed to make any laws regarding weapons of any kind, or their use, because it's a constitutional right and you can't mess with a constitutional right, ever, ever, no matter what, period. Anyone even suggesting that the law be any different is to arrested, charged with treason and excecuted on the spot.

Now, I'll be plenty willing to compromise on certain points there, with those who are magnanimous enough, smart enough, and have the open mind necessary to understand the nuances, providing that their primary objective, in all negotiations, is to maximize individual liberty for all Americans equally. "Cause, you know, I'm all about "compromise".

Comments have been closed on this topic.