... Ladies and Gentlemen, Gail Collins of the New York Times.
Here's Ms. Collins writing about gun control legislation with respect to the Tucson shootings:
Giffords represents a pragmatic, interest-balancing form of politics that’s out of fashion. But, in that spirit, we should be able to find a way to accommodate the strong desire in many parts of the country for easy access to firearms with sane regulation of the kinds of weapons that make it easiest for crazy people to create mass slaughter. Most politicians won’t talk about it because they’re afraid of the N.R.A., whose agenda is driven by the people who sell guns and want the right to sell as many as possible.(italics, ours)
Condescension? Check. Patronizing? Check. Provincialism, or perhaps more accurately, reverse provincialism? Check.
After reading Collins' column, one gets the feeling that she may not even know anyone who owns a gun.
The New York Times: connecting with readers in many parts of the country.
Posts
3 comments:
I will be surprised if any new gun laws come out of this. It has been a losing political issue for a long time.
As an aside, I was talking with some of the kids on our high school shooting team (also on our debate team). I told them I thought that the school ought to offer a shooting course. Anyone know of a high school that does that?
Steve
Steve, funny you should mention...
There were a handful of schools here in San Diego that participated in rifle competitions. They weren't even firearms, however, but air rifles.
And even that small program got axed because some felt that the schools should not have anything at all to do with firearms.
By all accounts, it seemed like a worthwhile program where the kids learned the disciplines of marksmanship. Sad.
I'll try to dig up the article where I read about it.
This was a very well-written and enjoyable post to read. Some great information to be absorbed in this post. I have bookmarked this for my friends. Keep blogging.
Post a Comment