search
top

Unfiskable

Bitter and I were talking yesterday about how the media seems to have largely moved away from the gun issue, and how much harder it’s getting to find media articles that are interesting, establish a pattern, or otherwise lend themselves to commentary or fisking. It’s actually making finding things to blog about more difficult, unfortunately. But every once in a while, I still see an article that may not follow a pattern, or be interesting, but that is so badly written, ignorant, and just overall poorly written that you can’t even really fisk it, because you just don’t know where to begin.

This is one such article. It’s just wrong in so many ways I don’t even know where to start. It’s not even on the same planet the issue is on at the moment. I’ve seen good arguments made against us, this is not among them.

9 Responses to “Unfiskable”

  1. JamesLee says:

    Very poor arguments, and made even worse when he responded in the comments section.
    All this is fine and good in the acedemic debate sense, much like these college professors that teach the wonders of Communism. Sure, on paper and in theory, it’s wonderful. Everyone contributes, no one needs. Just don’t let the light of day of the Real World, with real, fallible human beings placed into the Utopian Theory, both those in charge and as its subjects. Tends to gum up the works.

    Same thing with the 2nd Amendment. I would absolutely love world where defensive, or offensive for that matter, weapons were never needed. But here in the Real World, there are criminals, theives, and killers, who would not hesitate to harm or kill honest, decent people, sometimes for no reason at all. I like the fact that I am allowed at least a fighting chance to save my life and those I love.

    (I know the above discounts the shooting sports, and hunting, but the article in question did not focus on those at all except in passing)

  2. Flighterdoc says:

    And the by-line is from the People’s Democratic Republic of Canukistan, Alberta Oblast…

    Like the people in Occupied Canukistan know anything about the US…

  3. Thirdpower says:

    The historical aspects are ‘accurate’ in asmuch as they leave out many important details. The first one is the Miller decision. The author conveniently leaves out the fact there was no defense present.

    That alone removes any possible academic integrity of the piece.

  4. Carl from Chicago says:

    I agree, regarding the relative dearth of “good” gun control articles/arguments lately. Even Brady and VPC types have moved from bemoaning guns per say as bemoaning side-issues like carry licensing schemes (and their arguments hold no force if viewed statistically).

    I had found this present article before … reading it was a chore. It’s poorly done. And mostly, sort of loosely centers around arguments of the dissent in Heller … that the only purpose to the 2A is to protect some sort of collective right … and the purpose of that is not present in modern times.

    Poor arguments, indeed.

    This problem is not a bad one for us to have.

  5. RAH says:

    I found the article interesting. There is an valid argument that the 2A was inserted to allow a militia but also to protect those who refuse a militia call to service. I think the right to arms was assumed at the time and now it is not. The Constitution was allowing certain powers to the State and that was all. All freedoms were the rights of the citizens and no state had any power over those.

    This has changed a lot in today where the government seems to have unlimited power and the citizen can be regulated on his business, home and any other item,

    Back in the days of founding , there were no zoning regulation or the myriad of permit requirements.

  6. RAH says:

    The writer had a lot of animus toward non regulated people. He seems to think the European model that the better society is a regulated society. Notice how he inflated libertarian ideas to anarchy.

    To a person that prefers that rulers rule the people this is expected that they would be against private ownership for arms. Obviously any private person can revolt if they have arms. They may not be successful but they can cause havoc. Our 3 % folk are just that type that scares this writer.

    I may disagree with our 3% but I cherish their existence.

    They are the Mutual Assured Destruction deterrence that keep the gov’t in check.

    The current administration is usng the tactics of tryanny to push their agenda. The man in the NE that was OC and had the sign that the tree of liberty has to watered with blood was just that message hat there is a limit on how far we can be pushed.

    We hope that the message is heard. However Obama seems to be tone deaf.

  7. Steve says:

    His argument regarding the “original intent” of the founders of the NRA has got to be the single dumbest thing I’ve seen written about the issue in a long, long time.
    Hey, when even a lefty like Ruth Bader Ginsburg understands that the second amendment protects an individual right, the debate is over. Guys like him need to come out of the jungle, surrender and go home.

  8. Mark says:

    I hit him with Joe Huffman’s Just One Question, and he dodged it with a bunch of handwaving.
    I didn’t see any point in continuing to reply, since this guy is Stuck on Stupid™.

  9. Arnie says:

    The NRA’s Second Amendment Primer has dozens of Founders’ quotes that prove this guy wrong!

    I recommend every freedom-loving citizen obtain a copy and read it.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. SayUncle » Pointless - [...] seen quite a few such pieces that were so stupid that a rebuttal is a waste of [...]
top