Where is the Debate? It’s Here.

The Fordham University newspaper is very concerned about the crushing of debate by the evil NRA:

The National Rifle Association (NRA) is determined to squash public discourse on the issue of gun control. The NRA opposes even reasonable measures to curb the explosion of gun violence in America. There is no reason, as far as we can tell, that any citizen should need an AK-47. With atrocities such as the massacre in Aurora, Colo. (which involved the use of an assault weapon), the Sikh temple shooting in Wisconsin and the shooting of U.S. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, we need to reevaluate the basis for easy accessibility of assault weapons.

No, we had a debate, and your side lost. This might be a shock to college students in New York City, but the rest of the country is nothing like New York City. There is also no crushing of debate. Debate would actually make gun blogging interesting again. But when we start to debate, our opponents immediately descend into insults, ad hominem and penis jokes. That’s the “your side losing” part. If you want a serious intellectual discussion of the topic, we’re happy to have one. But first you better be prepared, and if there’s one thing I’ve learned from folks on the other side of this issue, is preparedness for serious debate is not their strong suit.

21 thoughts on “Where is the Debate? It’s Here.”

  1. Guns in the hands of people, bad. Drones in the hands of Obama, good. The logic of the left is most interesting.

    Why is the Second Amendment so difficult for some to understand? It is essential for the citizens to arm themselves if they feel the desire to do so. What goods is an air rifle or handgun when the government, that could turn on us at any moment, is armed to the hilt.

    Also, how do these lefties link AK-47’s to the Giffords shooting. Grasping at straws as always.

  2. That reminds me – did we ever determine if the Aurora “AR” was a .22LR, as some had suggested at the time?

    (Also, I “need” an AK because they’re fun to shoot.)

    1. Exactly! And it’s especially fun (and necessary) to shoot tyrants (although, bigger weapons might help with that duty)!
      As Oranje Mike queried, how can these college educated people not understand the Founders’ simple, straightforward purpose for the 2A? My gosh, Fordham students, read Federalist #46 and expel your ignorance!
      Good comment, Mr. Sigivald! Thanks!

      Sincerely, Arnie

  3. “There is no reason, as far as we can tell, that any citizen should need a vente latte.”

    “There is no reason, as far as we can tell, that any citizen should need an iPhone 5.”

    “There is no reason, as far as we can tell, that any citizen should need an SUV.”

    Start saying things like this, and hopefully they will quickly understand the difference between “needs” and “wants”.

    1. Actually, some of these people might actually want to subsidize iPhones for the poor…because everyone needs a smartphone.

    2. Was going to say this. Before debating, they should understand what rights are in the first place.

    3. Excellent analogies, Ms. Palette, but if I may add, there is also a NEED for such weapons in the hands of the people – to resist tyranny, as the Founding Fathers clearly declaimed. Jefferson put it best, “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations…evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, IT IS THEIR RIGHT, IT IS THEIR DUTY, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” [Emphasis mine]

      Respectfully, Arnie

    4. Erin, I also like using the inverse on them:

      Ok, so you are saying I don’t need an AK-47? Does that mean I need all those guns that you claim you don’t want to ban? A .357 Magnum? A bolt action 30-06? A Mosin Nagant? A Glock 20 (with a gun-haters approved 10rd magazine)? A Winchester 94? An Ithica 37? This list goes on and on, and I don’t have any of these guns- but you are saying I need these things! Do you have these guns which are a must have need?

      1. Well, one could narrow this down to categories. I say most everyone needs one serious rifle and two serious handguns (two because the authorities will seize the first one and keep it indefinitely if you have to use it in self-defense). Substitute as I did a shotgun for the handguns in areas where it’s very hard to impossible to possess a handgun (if that’s seized, you can hopefully make do with the rifle until you can replace the shotgun, since that also goes along with no concealed carry allowed).

    5. I was going to say what Erin said, so +1.
      Also, it baffles me when someone who wants to ban guns also thinks the War On Drugs has been ineffective. Has outlawing drugs gotten rid of the drug problem? Then why do they think outlawing guns will get rid of gun violence? The cognitive dissonance is palpable.

  4. I love it when people complain about the NRA or other organizations on our side squashing debate….

    in an article with comments disabled.

  5. New Yorker film critic and gadfly Pauline Kael is oft misquoted as saying, “I can’t believe Nixon won. I don’t know anyone who voted for him.” She didn’t actually say those words, but they might be described as “fake, but accurate.”

    The more things change in fly-over country, the more they stay the same in the ivory towers.

  6. BTW at work today I was talking to my co workers about my Prairie Dog hunt in Colorado and my envy for the guys with ARs vs me with a 4+1 shot Bolt-action.

    ZERO reaction. The anti-right forces lose.

    Just wait until shooting comes up in conversation and I take these guys out for their first shots!

  7. Darned “wordnerd” here: Writers at Fordham University should know better about language precision.

    It’s ‘quash’ not squash! Quash means to bring to an end or suppress by vote. Squash means to destroy by pressing…

  8. They do not want a debate. They have never wanted a debate. They want to get their way and they want you to shut up. If they could force you to shut up, they’d be more than happy to do it.

    If they do not get their way it can only be because you and the NRA are evil schemers. When they get their way it is a wonderful example of democracy, and common sense, in action.

    It’s the same when they lose an election– they come out with the epitaphs, saying democracy (along with all common sense) is dead and that the sinister, right wing CABALs have killed it.

    It’s all very childish in the worst way. It could be very easily defeated if there were enough adults in society, but instead it is tearing us apart. We are way behind the curve on this, as it’s been going on for many decades, and now it’s probably too late.

    1. The anti’s side of the debate can be paraphrased as: “I’ve got my opinion, don’t bother me with facts.”

  9. Yes, we had a debate. Whenever we have a debate, I seem to lose something. Why is that? Hmmm, ok, I own a gun. Why am I wrong for that? I don’t kill with it. Never, have I killed anything with it. I also own some cheese. That stuff could kill me. What do I do?

  10. I’m a member of the NRA larlegy because of the writing on this website. I’m also a member of the gay-rights Human Rights Campaign, something that can surprise people who don’t understand that the NRA is *not* a politically “conservative” organization. Despite my HRC membership, I sometimes like to call the NRA the nation’s foremost gay rights organization, for a very simple reason: gay people (who number among both my friends and my family) are much less likely to be the victim of violence if they are armed, and the NRA is always working to protect that right to self-defense.

Comments are closed.