I hinted at this in the past few weeks; one of the hard parts about being a Second Amendment supporter is that it feels a lot like the movie Groundhog Day. Every time the left goes through one of its spasms of gun-grabbing, they bring up the same, exact, precise points every single time. There is nothing new, ever, under the sun when it comes to anti-gun “arguments”. Never!
And yet every single liberal, especially in the media, receives the same threadbare worn-out arguments from their elders during every spasm of this debate, as if they’ve discovered some new logical Killer Anti-Gun App. And they trot them out with all the pride of a toddler that just made a good pants, repeating the moldy meme with a nod and a knowing, condescending wink, as if they think you’re lucky they suffer fools like you.
And you – me, in this case – shake your head, and re-muster facts that you’ve been deploying since before your children were born, and feel a little like the burned-out gunfighter in a Clint Eastwood movie; I’ve lived this day, or at least this argument, more times than I can remember. I know these facts backward and forward. There is not a corner of the left’s argument that I can’t make better than the lefty I’m wasting my time with.
And on you go.
Fortunately, we’re not alone.
———-
The problem with Eric Black isn’t that he’s a lefty who’s been getting steadily more “out” about it for years, in the “pages” of the MinnPost, whose focus has been sliding away from “legitimate journalism” toward “being a DFL Public Relations organ” for this past year or so.
It’s that he believes, and reports, so much that is just not so.
Yesterday, he – oh, God, it’s that Groundhog Day endless repetition thing again – dragged out the theory by the gloriously-occuponymous Dr. Carl Bogus, that the Second Amendment was written to protect slave-owners.
I read it yesterday, and thought “even in monster movies, there’s only so many times you have to kill the critter before the movie ends”. So with the esteemed Carl Bogus.
Fortunately, Joe Doakes from Como Park – an actual lawyer – took over. I’ll add the odd bit of emphasis to Joe’s email:
God, not that old chestnut again. Carl Bogus? Really?
Okay, facts: Bogus was indeed a law professor. He wrote a law review article for UC Davis in 1998. He admitted there was plenty of evidence the Founders intended the Second Amendment so ordinary people could resist tyrants. But he argued Southern slaveholders probably wanted to keep ordinary people armed to prevent slave rebellion. Therefore, the Second Amendment might have served two purposes: resist tyrants and oppress slaves. Bogus’ explicit argument is that ordinary people couldn’t have resisted tyranny and oppressed slaves acting alone so when the Founders said “the people” they must have meant “state militias.” His implicit argument is that since slavery is bad, the Second Amendment is tainted so we can ignore it.
Bogus’ arguments were immediately rebutted by other legal scholars, see for example “The Approaching Death of the Collectivist Theory of the Second Amendment” by Douglas Roots, 39 Duq. L. Rev. 71.; and “The Supreme Court’s Thirty-Five Other Gun Cases” by David Kopel, 18 St. Louis U. L. Rev. 99. The Supreme Court cited several of Bogus’ works in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) but the majority opinion expressly rejected his collectivist legal theory. Bogus was mentioned in Justice Stevens’ dissent in MacDonald v. Chicago, 130 S. Ct 3020 (2010) as the source for a single statistic on handgun violence, but not even Stevens endorsed Bogus’ collectivist legal theory. Nobody endorses his secret slavery theory.
Bogus’ legal theories are not taken seriously by Constitutional scholars, only by gun-control advocates hoping to rent his diploma to give the appearance of credibility. That’s why Bogus was appointed a director of Handgun Control, Inc. and served on the advisory board of the Violence Policy Center. That’s also why Eric Black cites him. It’s as if the Flat Earth Society suddenly learned of this brilliant mathematician named Ptolemy who PROVED the Sun does indeed revolve around the Earth and thus vindicated what they’ve believed all along. Sorry, fellas, serious scholars have moved beyond that hoax.
Joe Doakes
Como Park
I’m thinking; is there an issue besides guns where a journalist can get away with so much guileless incuriosity as the gun issue?
And wrap that incuriosity in so much misguided-yet-inflammatory rhetoric?
Inevitably, the MinnPost ran a photo of Confederate soldiers along with Black’s piece. I suppose we should be thankful it wasn’t a photo of white guys lynching a black guy, huh?
That said, I suspect I just gave some clever MinnPost copy editor another bright idea for the next round of anti-gun articles, along with the next, inevitable citation of Carl Bogus as an expert on the Second Amendment. You’re welcome, MinnPost.
Feminist dogma patrol, maybe, and even that doesn’t generally impact the Constitution.
Mark Dayton’s mental health? That’s not so much “incuriosity” as “a gentlemans’ agreement between journalists and the DFLers who own them”.
What is it about Second Amendment issues that makes so many journalists act like journalists think mere partisan bloggers act?
———-
Nothing against Eric Black, of course. He’s doing his job, which these days seems to be “advancing the DFL and Democrat Parties’ narratives”. It’s good to have a gig.
But the mainstream media in the Twin Cities has gotten a free pass on their habit of just slopping whatever crap fits the DFL’s narrative in front of the public for far too long.
I’m thinking; is there an issue besides guns where a journalist can get away with so much guileless incuriosity as the gun issue?
Man-caused global warming perhaps?
“Nothing against Eric Black, of course.”
*blink* *blink*
Bwaaaahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaa!
OK Mitch, step back and let the experts take it from here….
Leftist douchebags like Black treat journalistic integrity, ethics and truth like Dr. Frankenstein treats a fetus at Planned Parenthood. Fuck him and the bag of assholes that employ him.
As if as on cue, a visual explanation of why someone might need a high capacity magazine:
http://bcove.me/a1yin7s7
The sound you hear at the beginning of that clip, is the sound of a copper emptying a 15 round magazine. I’d like to hear his take on the suggestion he only needed 10.
The story is here: http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_22340814/st-paul-video-shows-cop-firing-at-man
Any of Eric Black’s reality based meal worms knows he fired the last 5 because he hates black people.
The Supreme Court recently broke with centuries of precedent by deciding that the “militia” phrase was mere throat-clearing and that the right to keep and bear is an individual right.
“Centuries of precedent”?
Terry,
No kidding. I’d made a mental note to address that one, too.
For those who are paying attention: the definition of “militia” in terms of defining who the Amendment referred to started in 1937 with US V. Miller – and really with some of the bizarre interpretations of Miller that cropped up in the sixties and seventies.
They’d have more credibility, as well as intellectual honesty, if they simply stated: “We don’t like guns, therefore we think you shouldn’t have them…”.
The argument would still, like their previous arguments, leak like a sieve…but it would be more honest.
Eric Black? Really, Mitch. I thought his brain ran out of wattage necessary to send impulses to his heart years ago. Never underestimate the ability of the stupid to believe the stupid and call it “research.”
…to them, I say: “I will relenquish my rights under the Second Amendment once you can guarantee a life free of crime and governmental tyranny.”. Which, of course, is impossible.
But, if they were able to produce a miracle and present the environment I described above, I would simply renege like a Dem on their promise of tax “cuts”.
oops. I meant spending “cuts”.
Never underestimate the ability of the stupid to believe the stupid and call it “research.”
Lately “Doonesbury” has been pushing the paranoid notion that the GOP “suppressed” a CRS study that showed no link between high tax rates and job creation or GDP growth.
The study is here: https://graphics8.nytimes.com/news/business/0915taxesandeconomy.pdf
The NY Times story about the study and its “suppression” is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/business/questions-raised-on-withdrawal-of-congressional-research-services-report-on-tax-rates.html?_r=0
And here is the Tax Foundation’s critique of the study: http://taxfoundation.org/blog/retracted-crs-report-taxes-and-growth-flawed-still-cited
And here is the bien pesant view of the report: a story in the Atlantic that describes the findings of the study as showing that lower tax rates increased income inequality without providing economic growth — and that does not so much as mention the substantive criticism leveled at the study’s methodology. It is a bad study. You can’t draw any conclusions from it, unless you are a moron (like the Atlantic writer) who assumes that any ‘research’ that affirms your world-view is true.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/09/tax-cuts-dont-lead-to-economic-growth-a-new-65-year-study-finds/262438/
Ah, but swiftee, the cops in NY won’t be able to use those fancy high capacity magazines unless the legislature passes an exemption for them. Silly fools, they banned high capacity magazines for everyone instead of just for law abiding civilians like they intended. Expect the cops to get their exemption mere weeks after the criminals have already gotten theirs.
And, right on schedule:
http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified%20-to-preserve-slavery
Their latest argument against individual gun rights is a fifteen year old paper written by an obscure legal academic.
Maybe the first amendment’s declaration of freedom of religion & freedom of speech was window dressing to write slavery into the constitution! Or the 3rd amendment was meant to inscribe the right of soldiers to kick slaves out of their homes into out founding document! Or the 7th amendment was designed to allow slave owners legal cover to sue people who would free their slaves!
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights is a slave-owners manifesto! But liberals love the United States, and love the Bill of Rights! Don’t you dare question their patriotism!
At present there is a post on Drudge which details Danny Glover’s recent speech at an MLK breakfast sponsored by Texas A&M. He was speaking in honor of Dr. King and the upcoming holiday.
In it, Mr. Glover explains how the Second Amendment was developed not only to oppress slaves, but to also facilitate the taking of land from American Indians.
Guess that settles it. He’s now an “activist” and should be believed.
I suppose that means there won’t be an Angels in the Outfield sequel anytime soon …
Pingback: Chanting Points Memo: The History Of An Illusion | Shot in the Dark
Pingback: Chanting Points Memo: Only The Master Gets To Write Gun Control Laws | Shot in the Dark
Pingback: I Wonder If Eric Black And Brian Lambert Know This? | Shot in the Dark
Pingback: Groundhog Year Part III: In Plain Sight | Shot in the Dark
Pingback: Junk Science, Junk Journalism, Platinum Funding | Shot in the Dark
Pingback: Open Letter To The MinnPost Editorial Team | Shot in the Dark
Pingback: Chanting Points Memo: Will Susan Perry Ever Stop Treating Readers Like Junior High Kids? | Shot in the Dark