Hartley's argument is that we can manipulate the gun conversation or whatever in this country by accusing gun owners of having small penises---women as well as men (seriously). The article's worth a confused, uncomfortable laugh, but the most telling paragraph is as follows:
In the absence of a plan to reduce the number of firearms out there, I think the only feasible option is to try to change people's attitudes toward guns. Right now, for whatever reason, gun owners think of themselves as rugged sportsmen and bold, brave defenders of family, liberty and personal property. Whether that self-image is the least bit true is subject to debate, but I think we can change that view with a little effort.
See what happened there? Hartley explicitly conceded that gun owners might be "bold, brave defenders of family, liberty and personal property." That's a positive thing! And yet still he wants to "change that view." So even if the "debate" revealed that gun owners are a net good for American society, he would nonetheless want to reduce that good in order to suit his own worldview. Can you imagine a better example of staunch fundamentalism?
No comments:
Post a Comment