“It’s like a proponent of laws against hate speech standing on a street corner shouting racial slurs in order to “demonstrate how easy it is” to say offensive things under the First Amendment. Of course it’s ‘easy’ to do something that is perfectly legal and protected by the Constitution. That doesn’t mean you ought to do it, especially if you claim to believe it is wrong.”
—–Wall Street Journal blogger, pundit and wit James Taranto, describing the “stupid stunt”perpetrated by Mark Kelly, the husband of former Rep. Gaby Giffords, in which he purchased the kind of weapon he and his wife have been lobbying Congress to ban, a so-called “assault weapon,” in order to “demonstrate how easy it is to obtain” one.
At least Kelly didn’t break the law, like David Gregory, to show how easy it was to get an illegal magazine in Washington, D.C.
Is this hypocrisy? No, it’s not hypocrisy. Kelly’s act is reminiscent, though not as certifiably cretinous, of stunt pulled by the foolish Ronald Miller, who walked into his child’s school and announced that he was going to start shooting people, just to show that he could. Kelly proved nothing. To someone who believes that a law-abiding citizen who believes he needs an assault weapon to protect his family against home invaders, Rodney King-style riots or the breakdown of civilization (never mind what Joe Biden or Andrew Cuomo think he needs), Kelly’s purchase proved only that the system works: a law-abiding citizen can buy a legal gun. The Horror. To anti-gun crusaders, Kelly proved that a gun they think should be made illegal is legal—but presumably they already knew that. Kelly was trying to demonstrate that legal conduct should be made illegal because people can currently do it?
This is the caliber of thinking the news media regards as persuasive gun opposition. Rep. Giffords already made a Congressional appeal in infantile terms, for which she can be excused (but not her husband) since she is being programmed, exploited and manipulated and may have little capacity to resist. Kelly, however, with this incoherent incident, shows that he has not applied sufficient quality thought to his anti-gun campaign (or is incapable of it) beyond a primitive “Guns kill…guns bad!”
He is using his wife’s tragedy and notoriety to assert influence he has not earned, and is not justifying with his words, logic or conduct. In short, he is wasting everyone’s time.
Pointer and Facts: James Taranto (WSJ)
Source: Fox News