{"id":8857,"date":"2013-04-15T05:42:42","date_gmt":"2013-04-15T05:42:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2013\/04\/15\/an-on-target-gun-quotation\/"},"modified":"2013-04-15T05:42:42","modified_gmt":"2013-04-15T05:42:42","slug":"an-on-target-gun-quotation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2013\/04\/15\/an-on-target-gun-quotation\/","title":{"rendered":"An On-Target Gun Quotation"},"content":{"rendered":"

Here<\/a>:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

So why do gun owners resist Washington and do-gooders such as Nocera? "You don't  understand guns," Baum said, "and you don't know gun guys, yet you want to make  rules for things you don't understand for people you don't  know." <\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Pointed, precise, pithy.<\/span><\/p>\n

As for the New York Times<\/em>' Joe Nocera, the man is an idiot, as I had occasion to demonstrate a while back in On the Illicit Use of 'By Definition'<\/a> when I reported <\/span><\/p>\n


\n. . . the following surprising statement by Joe Nocera<\/a>: "But it is equally true that anyone who goes into a school with a semiautomatic and kills 20 children and six adults is, by definition<\/strong>, mentally ill."  (Emphasis added.)  Well, maybe it isn't so surprising given that Mr. Nocera is a NYT op-ed writer.  Surprising or not, Nocera's claim is not only false, but illustrative of complete confusion about the meaning of 'by definition.' 
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

Suppose a Palestinian  Arab terrorist enters a yeshiva with a semi-automatic rifle and kills 20 children and six adults.  May you validly infer that the terrorist is mentally ill? Of course not.  He may or may not be.  Were the 9\/11 hijackers mentally ill?  No.  They collectively committed an unspeakably evil act.  But only a liberal would confuse an evil act with an insane act.  Suppose a young SS soldier is ordered to shoot a group of 26 defenceless Jews, toppling them into a mass grave they were forced to dig.  He does so, acting sanely and rationally, knowing that if he does not commit mass murder he himself will be shot to death.<\/span><\/p>\n

Conceptual confusion and emotive uses of language are trademarks of liberal feel-good 'thinking.'  To give one more example from Nocera's piece, he refers to semi-automatics as "killing machines."  Question: would a semi-auto pistol or rifle be a "killing machine" if it were used purely defensively or to stop a would-be mass murderer? Suppose it were used to deter an attack without being fired.  Is an <\/span>
'assault weapon' an assault weapon when used for defense? Is a liberal a liberal on the rare occasions when he talks sense?<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

No weapon is inherently assaultive or defensive.  Any weapon can be used for both assault and defense.  I can block your attack with my spear, and bash you over the head with my shield.  Remember Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative?  Reagan claimed that SDI was purely defensive.  But even if such a nuclear shield were used for purely defensive purposes, it could be used<\/em> as part of an offensive strategy — which is what made the Russkis nervous. <\/span><\/p>\n

The best proof that liberals do not want to have a serious gun 'conversation' is that they refuse to use the proper terminology.  'Assault weapon' has no definite meaning and it is emotive to boot.  The whole point of is is to appeal to people's emotions and occlude rational thought. The correct phrase is 'semi-automatic rifle' or 'semi-automatic long gun.'  These phrases are purely descriptive: neither emotive, nor normatively loaded.<\/span><\/p>\n

Suppose I want to have a 'conversation' with you about abortion, but I keep referring to you as a 'baby-killer' or a 'murderer.'  Do you think a productive discussion will ensue?  <\/span><\/p>\n

We may also tax our liberal pals with intellectual dishonesty when they elide the distinction — which most of them full-well understand — between semi-auto and full-auto.  They ride roughshod over that obvious distinction because it serves their agenda to do so.  This shows that they are not interested in truth, but in power.<\/span><\/p>\n

It is the same with liberals and libertarians who elide the distinction between legal immigrants and illegal immigrants.  They ride roughshod over that obvious distinction because it serves their agenda to do so.  This shows that, in this respect at least, they are not interested in truth and clarity of thought, but in power and in winning at all costs.<\/span><\/p>\n

And then they expect us to be civil.  Civility, like toleration, has limits.<\/span><\/p>\n

\nRelated articles<\/span><\/legend>\n
\n
\"\"<\/a>More Gun Links and Observations<\/a><\/span><\/div>\n
\"\"<\/a>And the Award for Gun Salesman of the Year Goes to . . .<\/a><\/span><\/div>\n
\"\"<\/a>Why Would Anyone Need a Semi-Automatic Rifle?<\/a><\/span><\/div>\n
\"\"<\/a>On the Illicit Use of 'By Definition.' 2012 'Gun' Version<\/a><\/span><\/div>\n
\"\"<\/a>Dan Baum Debates Joe Nocera in the New York Times<\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/fieldset>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Here: So why do gun owners resist Washington and do-gooders such as Nocera? "You don't  understand guns," Baum said, "and you don't know gun guys, yet you want to make  rules for things you don't understand for people you don't  know." Pointed, precise, pithy. As for the New York Times' Joe Nocera, the man is … Continue reading “An On-Target Gun Quotation”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[112],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8857","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-alcohol-tobacco-and-firearms"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8857","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8857"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8857\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8857"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8857"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8857"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}