Ed Asner, is a 9/11 truther. Given that, the quality of the work is about what you’d expect. Having proposed that Congress, the Supreme Court, and the majority of Americans “claim the Second Amendment is not simply about state militias but guarantees the unfettered right of everyone to own, carry, trade and eventually shoot someone with a gun” — ah, yes, the right to “eventually shoot someone with a gun,” so beloved to those of us who can read — Asner and his co-author, Ed Weinberger, proceed to offer up the most comprehensively illiterate and most embarrassingly researched example within what is, alas, a growing genre. As an example of Second Amendment trutherism, this one will likely never be beaten.
Charles C. W. Cooke
December 19, 2017
No, Salon, the U.S. Was Not ‘Founded on Gun Control’
[I’m skeptical of the claim that it will never be beaten. Human genius has limits but stupidity and evil do not appear to be so handicapped.—Joe]
The U.S. was not founded on gun control, but on rebellion against gun control. the Lobsterbacks had seized the armories in Boston, and word got out to Lexington and Concord. The Brits found the Colonists there ready, and thus was the War for Independence begun. There were other issues that fueled the War, but gun control was the spark that ignited it.
Those two Eds are idiots.
Oleg Volk captured your point nicely: http://www.olegvolk.net/gallery/technology/arms/revolution1793.jpg.html
I keep that image on my office wall.
Yes. The powder acts
Well, despite being amazingly not factual, it got published in a large-circulation paper, and noticed online by a lot of people. So the lie will travel around the world while truth is still putting on its shoes.
When you’ve had a methodology that worked for the past 50 years, keep using it until it demonstrably fails. That is all the antigunners are doing. They haven’t realized how much they’ve failed since about 1980, or at least aren’t admitting it.
Salon, a large circulation paper???
“Human genius has limits but stupidity and evil do not appear to be so handicapped.”
One could see that as “It’s difficult to build a successful home (farm, business, machine, etc), and easy to destroy one.”
However, since you included “evil” in it, looked at just so, that is a fair definition of all of human history, right there. It deserves more attention.
I would replace “genius” with “good”– There is the concept of the evil genius. In the same way that the stupid is “free” from the constraints of facts, the evil person is “free” of the “bonds” of moral standards.
Give me a simpleton with good morals, founded on the right premises, any day, over the evil genius. Thus I believe that intelligence, per se, is not the primary determining factor.
It has been said that the Jews have always been hated for one reason; they came along with this Ten Commandments thingy, which placed limits on human behavior. Some people dislike being so “limited”, and will make any excuse to “free” themselves from such. That explains why the leftists have always referred to police (the bad cops yes, but especially the good ones who are the primary target) as “pigs” and suchlike, and will hate the military no matter what, and that is exactly the same process by which they hate the concept of armed self defense– They oppose the constraints placed upon them by the protection of human rights.
So it is that we have the leftists crying “oppression” whenever moral standards are upheld. They must “resist”, even referring to themselves, cynically, as “liberal”. In their minds they are fighting for the “freedom” (which is actually the “freedom” from the constraints of what is right, to do wrong) to maintain a system of control and acquisition via coercion.
So we come to the concept of the First Rebel, who, after all, as S. Alinsky put it, at least got his own kingdom out of it.
I wouldn’t assume that Cooke, et al, necessarily believe what they’re saying. Rather, they’re pleased with themselves in their ability to make their case, for their side. That’s a very different metric. They are devoted members of an alliance, no more and no less, and all’s fair in war (the war against moral standards in this case). If you catch them in a lie they might be ashamed, but not for the reasons you or I might be ashamed. They’ll be ashamed for getting caught, thus letting down their team, and will endeavor to lie more carefully next time (“Courage”, as Dan Rather put it).
Am I conflating Milton, Pope and the Talmud/ Mishnah, but wasn’t Satan the chief among the angels who rebelled when God demanded that he bow and worship man? IIRC his defense was he would only do so to God himself. That is supposed to be the root of all evil in the world, as Satan attempts to prove by facilitating Man’s inclination to corruption and evil that Man was not worthy of worship by angels.
I did get a lot of Sunday School as make-nice, but not a whole lot of theology until I took it up later in life on my own, and the excerpts from Milton and Pope in English Lit .were incomprehensible without a good foundation in Shakespeare and the Bible.
I do wonder what Charles Cooke’s viewpoint on the First Amendment, and Freedom of Speech, Freedom to peaceably Assemble, The Freedom of the Press, and Freedom of Religion would be.
We already know to people of his ilk consider conservative words to be violence and Leftist Violence to be mere speech. After the right to compel the services of unwilling photographers and cake bakers, how long before there is a Supreme Court decision on Transubstantiation versus Consubstantiation, or infant baptism versus adult baptism?
Charles CW Cooke is pretty solid on all those issues, as he is on the 2nd amendment. His piece is written in opposition to the Ed Asner thing. Did you read the post?
I think you have confused Cooke for Asner.