Posted on 01/16/2012 7:14:32 AM PST by marktwain
I generally make New Year's resolutions in hopes of becoming a better person — more disciplined, healthier, or, at the very least, less pathetic. Some of these resolutions last until nightfall. Some don't. None ever sees February.
This year, I'm taking a different approach. I'm going to concentrate on giving up things. Not things like smoking — been there, done that. I mean giving up on ideas I have pursued through the years into one blind alley after another.
Ideas like climate change, for example.
You and I both know that the earth is heating up, right? Everybody knows that, with the possible exception of oil executives, the owners of coal mines, and Republican politicians.
Yet no number of hurricanes, droughts, floods, wild fires, melted glaciers, or columns by granola liberals like me has inspired a somnolent Congress to confront the problem.
Why? Money, of course.
If money is the mother's milk of politics (and it is), then the oil and coal industries are the biggest mothers on the block. They own our political system lock, stock, and sleazebag.
As a result, our energy policies are crafted largely by the extraction industries, which care little if at all about global warming, clean water, or breathable air. Meanwhile, the Earth's poorest nations, who sat back for 200 years while the countries known as "the West" burned forests, polluted the air and water, and made a lot of money, now want their turn at the trough.
It's hopeless. Even if we suddenly got serious about the issue, it's probably too late. We've reached a point where the warming already out there is producing a dynamic that will produce more warming.
So I'm giving up on writing about climate change. You can start the next oil spill without me.
I'm also giving up on gun control.
Over the years, I've written I don't know how many columns urging that some control be placed on the sale of weapons that go bang. Dozens probably, possibly even scores of them.
Every time some clown would go berserk and mow down a baker's dozen of his fellow citizens, I would deliver a rant about the idiocy of our failure to do something about the proliferation of guns in our society.
Did it do any good? Even less than my global warming columns. There are more guns out there now than ever, and states have grown increasingly permissive about where and how people can pack heat.
In other words, the battle has been lost. The absurd arguments of the National Rifle Association and the Merchants of Death lobby have carried the day.
Why? Money, of course. Too many politicians have learned that to deviate even the slightest degree from the NRA's absolutist positions is to invite a truckload of money into your opponent's campaign, ensuring your electoral defeat.
The argument I find most absurd, by the way, is the constitutional one. Yes, the Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. But "arms" back then had as much resemblance to modern weapons as an 18th-century schooner has to a nuclear submarine.
Do you think our founding fathers would have looked at an assault rifle that can fire at a speed of 400 rounds a minute and said: "Oh yeah, that's a good thing to have around the house"? Or "Everybody should have one"?
Get real. The Constitution is a wonderful document, but it's outmoded in many ways. Consider the preposterousness of North Dakota having the same number of senators as California. But it's not going to change any time soon, at least not for the better.
Ladies and gentlemen, the Forces of Darkness are in the saddle, and they're wearing spurs.
This horses behind should try occupying reality.
Wow! You really know how to wake a girl (me) up don’t you!
Yes, yes they would have. Especially at Lexington, Concord, Saratoga, Yorktown, etc etc ad infinitum.
Or, they would have said "A Weapon that's near 100% reliable in all weather conditions, virtually jam-proof, and accurate out to as far as I can see? It will keep my family well-fed so long as I have ammuntion? Signest me up!"
Liberal projection is endlessly fascinating.
the “author” also forgets muskets were seen that way in those centuries.
The pope even once argued for arms control regarding CROSSBOWS!
“Every time some clown would go berserk and mow down a baker’s dozen of his fellow citizens, I would deliver a rant about the idiocy of our failure to do something about the proliferation of guns in our society”
I guess he could go live in Mexico. I hear they have some very strict laws on gun ownership.
“Do you think our founding fathers would have looked at an assault rifle that can fire at a speed of 400 rounds a minute and said: “Oh yeah, that’s a good thing to have around the house”? Or “Everybody should have one”? “
Based on what they wrote, yep. When they wrote those words, if you had enough money you could outfit your own warship, complete with cannons- the most destructive things in the 18th century world. That didn’t seem to faze them- why? They understood the reality of things- no government deserves a monopoly on deadly force, not even ours. They understood that people not only have the right to oppose tyranny, they also have the right to own the means to resist it.
“In other words, the battle has been lost. The absurd arguments of the National Rifle Association and the Merchants of Death lobby have carried the day. “
I’m glad he’s conceding; however, I would like to point out that it is the arguments FOR gun control that are absurd. The proposition that if one goes around weaponless then one is safer is inherently illogical.
Gee, he throws in the fact that each state has two senators in his screed here.
I’m surprised he didn’t bring up other liberal complaints about the constitution, such as slavery being allowed, women not having the right to vote, etc. I’m surprised he didn’t launch into other liberal screeds such as how we’re starving public education to fund the military, and how we are a racist, sexist, homophobic bigoted society. If he’s going down this road, why not cover all the bases?
Thanks for the compliment!
Well look on the bright side. At least he’s giving up the fight. LOL!!
This is some funny stuff. Another self-important leftist realizes his audience isn’t much bigger than the number of fingers on one hand.
It would be greater but half his family hates him too.
Fully automatic firearms are legal for individuals to own.
But it is not a simple, cheap process for individuals to own them.
http://www.impactguns.com/content.aspx?page=howtoorder
I think our founding fathers would have been very pleased.
Yes they give up or get persuaded by the ladies in tennis shoes and next thing you know all those little things for the good of all strip us of our rights and freedoms
One raging statist is dropping out and endorsing the gun grabbing, baby killing, homo loving, big goobermint health caring, Harvard educated elitist.
On the other hand, back then everyone's rifle was an 'assault rifle'.
Yep according to what was said by them during the process of writing it they wanted us to have the same firepower as our government so our government could not enslave us.I think the left would be mortified to hear what he founding fathers would say about their ideas.
Clearly the wisdom of our Founding Fathers is lost on this loon. The reason each state has two Senators is to prevent larger states from imposing their will on smaller states.
The Senate provides the balance to the House of Representatives in which larger, more populous states have greater representation than smaller, less populous ones do.
Absent the critical balance the Senate provides, we'd have MOB RULE, much like we did the first two years of the Obama Administration when Democrats owned both and could impose their will, literally by force, upon the rest of us.
It is the imposition of will by force of Democrat majority that the author is really bemoaning here.
Liberals are truly only happy when they can tell the rest of us what to do.
Eff him, the entire Democrat Party, and the Republican "Establishment" which seeks to do the same thing in our Primaries.
Interesting...did not know that.
Is the idea of the Second Amendment really to let the citizens have the same weapons as the military?
I thought the “right to bear arms” just meant guns. So you’re saying it means citizens should legally be allowed to possess aircraft carriers and tactical nukes?
The idea was that an armed citizenry would be far stronger than any army the Government could pay for.
I suspect that it would take quite a while for the idea of nuclear weapons to take hold. It is rather hard to determine how they would handle it. They might well want the State governments to have and control them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.