You know Kathleen Parker is going to lay an egg when she starts off like this:
Unlike many who recently have joined the debate about gun rights, I have a long history with guns, which I proffer only in the interest of preempting the “elitist, liberal, swine, prostitute, blahblahblah” charge.
“Prostitute”? Oh boy…
She goes on to relate the fact that her daddy was, by modern standards, a “gun nut”. Then she meanders though highlights in the history of guns, starting with guns as the tool of the white oppressors, to a freedom cry of civil rights activists trying to defend themselves. She appeals to the authority of a late-60s era Ronald Reagan, who it should be noted was substantially less conservative than his 80s incarnation. She casually juxtaposes the black civil rights activists against the NRA’s lack of interest in constitutional issues until the late 70s. (Wink-wink, nudge-nudge.) Never mind that this change in focus had nothing to do with racial civil rights, or that the NRA had previously been a sportsmen’s organization and wasn’t in the lobbying business.
“The degree of one’s allegiance to principle apparently depends mainly on who is holding the gun.”
Having slandered those who bitterly cling to the Second Amendment, she concludes by begging the question of what constitutes reasonable gun control.
This still leaves open the loophole of private sales that do not require background checks, which President Obama wants to close. We will hear more about this in coming weeks, but the call meanwhile to ban assault weapons or limit magazines in the wake of the horrific mass murder of children and others at Sandy Hook Elementary in Connecticut is hardly draconian. It won’t solve the problem of mentally disturbed people exacting weird justice from innocents, but it might limit the toll. Having to stop one’s rampage to reload rather breaks the spell, or so one would imagine.
One also imagines that the old Reagan would say there’s no reason a citizen needs an assault weapon or a magazine that can destroy dozens of people in minutes. He would certainly be correct and, in a sane world, possibly even electable.
This is a classic example of question-begging. Kathleen Parker gets to decide what’s sane and reasonable because,… just because. I mean, she’s sane and reasonable…
Parker’s column is noteworthy not because I happen to disagree with her –there are oodles of columns like that– but because of her horrible writing. There is not even the hint of a rational argument in it. It is comprised only of sophistry and gimmicks.