Monday, August 14, 2006

Whistling a different tune?

James Alan Fox at the Boston Herald is portraying hmself as being more 'rational' concerning gun ownership. Apparently James has felt the wrath of the American gun owning public in the past;
.
"Whenever I breathe even a word about guns in this space or other media outlets, I can expect a rapid-fire barrage of irate e-mails from gun advocates. I’m surprised they can afford so much free time away from keeping their firearms collections well polished."
.
Notice the undertones....Yes, it is easy to see by your opening paragraph that you are changing your tune, James.
.
James just wants to be sure that guns get into the right hands;
.
"I have never suggested abolishing the right of gun ownership by trustworthy citizens. Moreover, the criteria for licensing owners should be standardized (at least within Massachusetts) so as not to infringe on the rights of legitimate gun owners."
.
"Trustworthy"? OK, that's a new one. So now you want only those deemed trustworthy to be able to exercise their God-given, Inherent and Unalienable right? And I suppose you have a definition for whom would be deemed trustworthy, James?
.
There is, of course, the obligatory disparaging remark aimed at the NRA;
.
"As I have noted before, the National Rifle Association has recently grown more powerful in manipulating congressional action. My complaint is not so much with the NRA (which is entitled to its position), but with members of Congress who capitulate to its pressure. Our lawmakers should adopt gun policy based on sound evidence, not based on fear that a potent lobby will hold a gun to their political heads."
.
"Our lawmakers should adopt gun policy based on sound evidence", you say James? Funny, I had always considered the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights as all the evidence needed.
Interesting....
.
Mr. Fox then goes on about advocating 'ballastic fingerprinting', some tripe about 'imprudent trigger-happy gang-bangers' and more, ad nauseam. Going so far as to make the inference that, those of us concerned about government intrusion(s) are 'paranoid'.
.
Believe I understand why Mr. Fox gets all those E-Mails: j.fox@neu.edu. It is also crystal clear that Mr. Fox needs to get a better, than grade school, understanding of what 'Shall NOT be Infringed' means.
.
If this is a change of tune, I for one, would not have wanted to read his original work....

4 comments:

Jay said...

"'Our lawmakers should adopt gun policy based on sound evidence', you say James? Funny, I had always considered the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights as all the evidence needed."

I couldn't have put it more eloquently, David. What was that article written by (I think) Sanford Levinson - The Embarrasing Second Amendment? Even an ACLU member knows it is a God-given and inherent right, even though he found it embarrasing.

E. David Quammen said...

The guy needs an examination. Man, could not believe the article when I first ran across it this morning....

How are you doing, bud?

Strehlem said...

"That said, firearms do make violent attacks far more lethal."

So...the deceased victim of a club, knife, strangling, or motor vehicle homicide can take comfort in the fact that they're not "As Dead" as they would be from a firearm?

This politico is a Schmuck, Putz, Buffoon.

You're doing good work, David. Keeping up with you over at KABA.

E. David Quammen said...

Thanks bud.

That reporter definitely needs some psychological attention....