Why I think the National Review stinks

salzo

www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley040902.asp

cowboy62

I read it, and saw nothing that didn't ring true.I don't believe the author was taking any sides at all. More so he was comenting on the situation concerning the 2nd ammendment debate in our post 9-11 country.If any position was being taken, it was that, in our current political climate, it would be unwise to take any stand against the 2nd.I am not trying to rebut your post. Could you explain why articles like this cause you to think the National Review stinks.Personally I think the National Review stinks too. Cowboy

whiteclouder

I don't read the NR but this article cited George Will, so they can't be all wrong. It was a well balanced, thoughtful piece that did not come down on either side. Other than referring to Pro-control people as 'the inteligentsia', an oblique backhand to we anti-contol folks, it was a good article.Clouder..

salzo

"An easy way to put it is that they(pro-gun folk)view the amendmentas if the initial clause was irrelevant."... I am a pro gun person, and I do not think the initial clause is irrelevant. Quite the contrary, I think it is very relevant.The entire "compromising" push that the author was spewing, totally defies the second amendment. The national review claims to be concerned with constitutional abuses, yet they feel that it is totally appopriate to "compromise" the second amendment. That makes them no worse than the anti-second crowd. The anti second crowd thinks they can compromise the second alot, while the National review crowd thinks you can compromise the second a little. Both approaches are of a subjective nature, and leacve it up to how much of the constitution can be "ignored", and be acceptable.The authors insistance that standing up for the right to own a machine gun, makes the right to own a pistol for defense, indefensable. That is hogwash, and completely ignores the intent of the amendment. Machine guns are, and should be protected.I remember hearing their editor Richard Lowry say that a ban on assault weapons is not unconstitutional. How anyone can claim to be "pro-constitution"(National Review),yet feel a ban on assault weapoins is not unconstitutional, does not make sense. The national review feels that they can base what is and is not constitutional, solely on their opinions and feelings on the issue. They are no better than the anti-constitutionalists.

---

Happiness is a warm gun

whiteclouder

salzo:
I'd love to sit down over a beer and debate this article with you. It's strange that two people with similar interests and views such as you and I have on the gun control issue, can read the same article and come away with nearly oppposed opinions.

We will compromise with the abolitionist. We will not be allowed to keep and bear mortars, or cannons, hand grenades or rocket launchers. That is a fact, and to insist that the Constitution gives you that RIGHT makes you look like a fool That is what the author was saying. To insist diminishes your credability. I agree with him.

So yes, you point is well taken. The NR stands for the Constitution and the Constitution guarantees our right the keep and bear arms but we live in a real world and it dictates restraints. Therein lies the battle, how far can we be reasonably restrained.

Clouder..

Never shoot a skunk in your own front yard!