09 September, 2011

Forbes contributor doesn't understand

E.D. Kain wrote an editorial in response to this blurb. Mr. Kain shows his ignorance in who gets to interpret the Constitution with this gem.
I’ve never interpreted the right to bear arms as the right to own any damn gun you want. The Second Amendment was written when arms consisted of flintlock muskets. You had to actually work to load one of those things (I loaded one once, a very long time ago, and while I’m sure you get better at it with time, it’s not a quick process).
Well there E.D., back when the constitution was written, we didn't have e-mail, the internet, nor television either. See, technology has changed, and for the better. I can write this piece and publish it in my own little corner of the internet. Just like I can load my semi-auto handgun and take a trip to the local range and blast holes in paper zombie targets as fast as I can pull the trigger. He goes on about how carrying weapons has not stopped these attacks. Note though, that the National Guardsmen that were murdered in Nevada, were not carrying weapons on themselves. He seemingly cries that somehow an armed citizen should rush in and have a gun fight with the attacker.
The logic behind carrying weapons to prevent these sort of shootings also strikes me as fundamentally flawed.
I won't go into alot of detail here, but Tam has covered my argument better than I could have. Ignorance, E.D. Kain can haz it.

1 comment:

Old NFO said...

Geez... Idjits, and they breed too!