As has been noted elsewhere, we have a Bill of Rights to protect us from government telling us what we can say or do. Even Guth knows this, although he seems to know it only at a child-like egocentric level. The First Amendment allows people to say any stupid shit that comes to their mind without the government outlawing that speech. Sometimes the 1A has protected important, history-making speech and other (most) times it has protected idiocy. Of course, the reason we have a Second Amendment is much the same - to guarantee freedom from government attempts to infringe on a right. Guth is willing to at least, after his idiocy became so public, mouth some begrudging understanding of these ideas; “I defend the NRA’s rights first and second amendments and I hope they respect mine.” Yes, I acknowledge and defend your right to say what you want - I do not have to respect anything you do. Not so sure what you said suggests you "defend" mine. Right. You think my 2A rights make me complicit in a crime and seem to hope that a future crime will take my sons and daughters from me. Like I said - I do not have to nor do I respect that even if you are free to say it.
Guth's refusal to retract his statement is to be expected (why I do not tweet - once the round is headed downrange, you can't take it back). But his feeble explanation is laughable:
‘If you look at how I structured the statement, I didn’t really bring [the NRA’s) children into it,” he said. “I carefully structured the statement to make it conditional, but apparently it was too much of a nuance for some people.” Guth went on to say, “I don’t want anybody harmed. If somebody’s going to be harmed, maybe it ought to be the people who believe that guns are so precious that it’s worth spilling blood over.”
Carefully structured? Be honest. Be a man. 1 - you clearly believe such an act will happen again - you say as much- you do not say if. 2 - given that you really do see this as an eventuality, you hope that WHEN it does, it will befall someone - and seemingly that will be the sons and daughters of law-abiding gun owners like yours truly who have committed no crime. 3 - any data on who thinks guns are worth spilling blood over? Sounds like it is you who find this issue one deserving blood. I would prefer this never happens again - because we begin to convict criminals for crimes they commit and punish them appropriately and hospitalize and treat those who have mental illness.
Well, Guth is a journalist after all - you can't expect a modern journalist - even one who is teaching the journalists of the future, to be objective or facile with the language.
Kansas has recently made moves toward concealed carry on campus, but I imagine, given Guth's position that if this happens again and it just so happens that it is in his classroom, he will prefer it if no one but the shooter is armed. Note how carefully I structured this in making it conditional. I hope that is not too nuanced for you.
Good luck.
UPDATE: Wow - paid administrative leave - why can't those of us who don't make foolish tweets get some of that?
Of course, what is even more puzzling is the Kansas City Star's opinion that "It’s completely rational to blame the NRA and other pro-gun groups for promoting the political climate that has made it nearly impossible to enact reasonable gun-safety measures in America." They use the word "reasonable" as if it has an agreed upon definition, as if reasonableness is an absolute, as if the NRA and its members agree that such proposals are reasonable and are only blocking them out of sheer desire to be contrary (of course, this is what the Kansas City Star believes).
In fact, as most liberals and conservatives do not seem to realize, what is reasonable to you is almost always bat-shit crazy to someone else, lots of someone elses. The NRA and its members do not fight such proposals because they think they are reasonable, they fight them because they see them as unreasonable, as wrong-headed, as infringing on a God given right.
Chastising and admonishing them for disagreeing with you is hardly "reasonable" or "debate".
No comments:
Post a Comment