Common Ground on Gun Control?; Not with Sarowski running the debate

gunIf there is ever going to be a reasonable gun control debate in this country, both sides are going to have to back off from their unreasonable positions.   On the left, there must be a realization that the gun culture in this country is too ingrained for the United States to ever completely rid itself of guns and the thousands of needless deaths each year.   On the right, there must be a realization that gun violence is a stain of shame our country just can’t seem to wash off.  If all gun control is off the table, demands from the left will get louder and will gain more traction.

And then there’s Nancy Sarowski.  If the right is truly using the “logic” she showed in her weekly Petoskey News-Review column, then there really is no chance for the country to come together in creating a public policy that is reasonable and still protects highly coveted gun ownership rights.  How bad has Sarowski’s commentary become?  My wife is a dedicated teacher who routinely refuses to get involved in any public political debates.  She has well-reasoned opinions and when she is out of the public eye, she is more than willing to work through issues.   But she stays out of the paper, goes to excessive lengths to make sure her students are always guessing what her personal views are, and generally avoids connection to any public controversy.  She even refused to put yard signs on her lawn during elections because she didn’t want students to think she was biased.

Clearly her approach and mine are quite different.  I couldn’t teach like she does and she couldn’t teach like I do.  So when I heard her spouting euphemisms of incredulousness last night over Sarowski’s “Hypocrisy and Gun Control” column, I realized just how off the trail of logic Sarowski had wandered.  So upset at the misinformation, pretzel logic, and straw dogs that are Sarowski’s trademark, Lisa actually posted something pretty funny on Facebook lampooning Sarowski.   I’m sure she spent the entire night worried that she had crossed some line.

Here are the highlights which motivated my wife to go public with her outrage:

1)      Sarowski starts out comparing meat-eating to gun ownership.  (I know, I know, but please stay with me.)   Apparently it is hypocrisy to eat meat while at the same time saying “I couldn’t kill an animal.”  Actually the vast majority of Americans are meat eaters who would never willingly kill any animal and none of them consider people of their ilk to be hypocrites.   It’s like realizing that wheat is a living thing and wailing and gnashing your teeth every time you eat a sandwich.   I’m glad I have “hit men” (as Sarowski calls them) at the stockyards to do the dirty work for me because if I had to kill my own cow, I’d never get to enjoy that delicious prime rib.   I’m sure work at stockyards is potentially upsetting to the human workers who have to watch living things march off to their demise, but they certainly can’t be the only people who are allowed to eat meat guilt-free.

2)      Her reference to shooting Bambi for dinner makes me wonder if Sarowski thinks cows, pigs, chickens, etc. are individually shot before they are slaughtered for market.  Maybe I’m reading too much into her words, which I admit can lead to some pretty insane conclusions.

3)      Sarowski then goes on to a tedious justification for gun ownership that will leave your head spinning and in considerable pain once you get through it.  She sets up scenarios of home invasions and how a person could handle each one of them.  Not surprisingly they all end up with the home owner blasting the shit out of the invader as their God given right.  While the idea of a home invasion is certainly terrifying, I can honestly say I have never once worried about it.  Are the vast majority of Americans really living in fear each day and night that today might be the day when someone bursts in and tries to kill them?  That kind of paranoia can certainly lead to some pretty strange policy objectives.

4)      Sarowski then quotes the Second Amendment which she, like many, fails to understand.  But that discussion is for another day.

5)      She claims that Missouri voted to nullify any potential federal gun control laws without informing us that nullification is not a legal tactic and Missouri is pretty much laughed at for pretending the Civil War didn’t happen.   Nullification never has been a legal option for states and 700,000 men died to make that point.

6)      She makes a claim that the original meaning of the Second Amendment was to prevent tyranny by the government but that has since gone away and now it means we have a right to self defense.   Nancy Sarowski, Legal Scholar.   NOT!

7)       Finally, she uses quotes from Ted Cruz and some reference to Rand Paul to support her points.  If there are two more out of touch politicians than these two, I’d love to hear about them.  (that crazy birther Rep in Florida aside.) No argument is strengthened by using Ted Cruz and Rand Paul to back you up.

Whopper of the Week:

In homage to wife, I present the craziest of crazy from Nancy:

“Our entire constitution (sic) is written to limit the power of the federal government and protect the states’ rights to govern and protect their citizens.”

Uh, Nancy, that’s not remotely true.  Read the Supremacy Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and 90% of the rest of the Constitution which lays out federal authority.  Granted the Ninth and Tenth Amendments limit federal power vis a vis the states.  And the rest of the Bill of Rights constrains federal activity, but our “entire” Constitution is not written to limit the power of the federal government and it ain’t even close.

Tags: ,

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: