I guess the epic smackdown Michael Bellesiles received at the hands of Clayton Cramer and other in the gun community wasn’t enough. The left is back again with this fraudulent argument, arguing that Americans had no real interest in guns until after the Civil War. In this case, the argument is that Big Corporations made us love guns. I can’t imagine why anyone heading out west on the wagon train might, for perfectly rational reasons, desire themselves a repeating rifle. Yep. Must be slick marketing.
What it boils down to is that this is an election year, and Clinton is determined to get elected on a platform with gun control at the center. Notice Haag, the author, says:
Haag says she began this project determined not to become “entrapped†in gun-control politics. “I came to this material as an historian,†she writes. But she concludes with calls to put the bottom-line gunmaker, rather than the emotionally invested gun owner, at the forefront of the battle over gun violence. She calls for “smart gun†technology, by which a weapon can be used only by its rightful owner. She wants to remove the barriers to research and data collection on gun violence. She calls for additional consumer regulations and protections involving firearms. (“A toy gun is subjected to more consumer safeguards as a product than a real gun,†Haag writes.) Most important, she urges the repeal of the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which shields manufacturers, distributors and dealers from civil liability for damages caused by their products.
Yes, I do not wish to become “entrapped” in gun control politics. She’s just a poor little innocent historian, after all. So now allow me to regurgitate every talking point from Hillary’s campaign.
NRA has already pointed out some issues with this narrative, but I’m sure that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
I like rightful owner part of the argument, because the 2nd amendment could be argued to make every American the rightful owner of every gun. I say bring it dingbats.
Haag says she began this project determined not to become “entrapped†in gun-control politics.
No, she just wanted to spew her talking points and walk away without being contested, rebutted, argued with, or talked back to.
Y’know, since having to actually defend her opinion would necessarily involve becoming “entrapped” in the debate, wouldn’t it?
Because requiring her to defend her opinion is just me exercising my White Mail Privilege…
She wants to remove the barriers to research and data collection on gun violence
Ah, that myth.
There are no barriers to anyone doing those things … except with Federal funding for “public health”.
Which makes sense, since it’s not public health, and they have a very long history of confusing “research” with “propaganda”.
On the other hand, given her positions, one cannot imagine she’s arguing in good faith, at this point.
(One might point out to her that a company that makes a toy gun or a kitchen knife isn’t actually liable if someone use it to rob a store, either.
Because … well, it’s not their !@#!%^ fault someone decided to rob a store using their perfectly legal and properly made product that isn’t sold “for robbing stores” or other unlawful uses.
The PLCAA only exists because people like her wanted to pretend there’s magic extra-special liability only for firearms that has no basis in normal liability law.)
Let’s have some fun:
Like guns, clothing wasn’t really popular in the first 100 years of our country. Only with the industrial revolution and mechanization of the mills in Lowell, MA did people really begin to wear clothes!
Of course it was a tough sell at first, The mill owners had to invest millions in equipment and advertising, dam rivers, and take huge risks, all in the hope that there would eventually be a demand for clothing in the new world. Only once they built magnificent factories that could churn out acres of cloth did people buy into the fact they needed to cover themselves.
How stupid can the anti-rights folks be when it comes to simple economics?? I just answered that question for myself when I saw The Liar and Bernie on TV!
No, she doesn’t want any entanglements; she just wants to defecate on the Persian rug and let the people who wove it clean up the mess.
“…an historian,”
You are neither a historian or grammarian.
Both are acceptable. It’s just that in American English, you don’t often see “an historian”