My objection? After an exhaustive search on the internet, I couldn't find a single source quoting the transcribed text of Merkle's speech. It was nowhere to be found, though there were ample postings of her YouTube video. I find it simply amazing that our print media couldn't manage to also post her actual comments in writing. If she truly took the nation by storm with her effective arguments in support of the 2nd amendment (packed into 3 succinct minutes), then it should have been considered a public service to render these comments in a typed format.
That's how I work - I take the written and analyze it word-by-word, line-by-line. Yes, I could have transcribed Merkle's words myself but I'm not going to. Since lamestream media saw fit to quote or paraphrase only certain parts (which I assume to be the most important parts) of Merkle's presentation, that's what I'll analyze today.
But I can't emphasize strongly enough how far in decline our media has gone that it couldn't post such an (obviously) important text, instead directing us to a YouTube video clip. Of course, the reason we're referred to that clip (and a huge reason for its 2.3 million hits) has far more to do with Merkle being a photogenic teenager than anything else.
The NRA weighs in
Compare these two quotes, especially my highlights within:
QUOTE:
Teen's Pro-gun Testimony Leaves Lawmakers Speechless
Sarah Merkle, an avid shooter and 15-year-old Maryland resident, testified before Maryland state lawmakers in defense of the Second Amendment. She said that her shooting abilities have made her eligible for various college scholarships, yet strict guns laws could destroy her chances of attending a reputable university.
:UNQUOTE: from the NRA website, which didn't quote Merkle's tex but only provided the YouTube clip.
"Achieving stricter gun control laws would obliterate any opportunity I could have had to attend a decent college on a shooting scholarship," [Merkel] says. [Footnote 1]
"Destroy?"/"obliterate?" - These are words that would far better describe someone shot in the head than the potential misfortunes of Little Miss Muffet. However, in a bit, I'll explain her comments and offer some solutions. But for now I'll note typical NRA deceitfulness: While Merkle merely claims she wouldn't be able to attend college "on a shooting scholarship," the NRA doesn't include that distinction at all. Furthermore, I have no idea why the NRA seems to be linking collegiate shooting programs with "reputable" universities.
A Tale of Two Articles
- Article 1 -
Here's the first of two articles (see Footnote 1) from which I'm going to select quotes, each followed by my comments.
QUOTE:
A teenage girl skyrocketed to the center of the gun control debate when a YouTube video of her three-minute pro-gun speech went viral, acquiring more than 2.3 million views.
My Comments:
What an age we live in when a sophomore in high school is idolized, yet her literal comments (in their written entirety) are nowhere to be seen. I suspect that many of those contributing to those 2.3 million views are NRA fans or the idle curious who have nothing better to do with their time.
QUOTE:
Sarah Merkle, 15 of Maryland, has been shooting guns for almost eight years and is a member of the Maryland Rifle Club and Maryland State Rifle Club. She says in the video that signing anti-gun legislation would not be doing away with gun violence but rather "liberating American citizens of our constitutional rights."
My Comments:
What kind of parents encourage their children to start firing weapons at the age of seven? Did they bother to encourage young Sarah to pursue any other hobbies?
If Sarah was so concerned about our constitutional rights, why didn't she also rant about the right to own machine guns and Rocket-Propelled Grenade launchers? Surely the 2nd Amendment's protection must extend to those; must extend to more than just the crude blunderbusses which were the only firearms in existence in the late 1700's. Besides, as those who are fond of saying (especially of the First Amendment's free speech rights) that no rights are absolute, surely the Second must be as subject to regulation and interpretation based on the public's right to a safe environment.
QUOTE:
Merkle, who says that her favorite rifle is a Bushmaster, makes a gripping plea to legislators who are considering passing legislation to enact stricter gun control laws.
In her testimony, Merkle tells that she has become eligible for various shooting scholarships at prestigious universities, and the laws proposed would interfere with her eligibility to join their shooting teams.
My Comments:
Am I reading this correctly? Merkle made a "gripping plea to legislators" so that she could more easily join a collegiate shooting team? Talk about the height of narcissism - that this young lady is making a personal appeal that benefits herself and the microscopic group of others who might also want to join such teams. I've heard of special interest appeals, but this one is truly special.
QUOTE:
A provision in the Maryland law makes it more difficult for residents to transport their firearms across the state border. In the case of Merkle, it is problematic because she would be unable to shoot at a range that is located over the border in nearby Delaware. Stricter gun laws would hinder her ability to practice.
My Comments:
"Makes it more difficult?" But not impossible, right? If this law makes it too difficult, Merkle would do better by lobbying for exemptions for folks like herself who are competitive marksmen.
Then there's this whole scholarship issue to address. If she wants to cross state lines to attend a university giving her a shooting scholarship, then why doesn't she buy the weapons she'll need in that state and keep them there, while also keeping her already-purchased weapons in her home state? Her favored Bushmaster costs under $2,000, which is nothing compared to the amount her scholarship would net her. A good investment, I'd say.
Besides, maybe - just maybe - she could study harder and get a scholarship based on academic merit. Or she could work or take out loans like millions of others do.
QUOTE:
In her plea in front of Maryland State Legislature in Anapolis, Merkle says that guns are not the problem, people are.
"Purging our society of violence and murder cannot be done by gun control legislation." She continues, saying that in passing legislation, "You are not eliminating guns from society but eliminating our ability to protect our lives, liberty and pursuits of happiness."
My Comments:
"People are?" - Maybe...but they become more problematic with a gun too easily obtained and readily at hand.
Society can't be entirely purged of violence, but gun control can make a dent.
No one's talking about "eliminating" anything, though insisting on reasonable controls should be entirely expected. With those controls, one can still "protect our lives, liberty and pursuits of happiness."
QUOTE:
Though her argument was effective and concise, that did not stop Maryland officials from approving a sweeping package of restrictions on firearms last week.
My Comments:
Then her argument wasn't that effective, was it? In fact, I haven't read anything to bolster any claim about how mindblowing her arguments were. None at all. Simply because they weren't.
I've read various reports of legislators hearing Sarah's speech being "stunned" into silence. However, that's merely assumption hard at work. In the place her comments were offered, I dare say the venue didn't allow for rebuttal nor was any expected.
QUOTE:
If signed into law by Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, who will likely sign it, the legislation would require those hoping to purchase firearms to provide fingerprints and acquire a license before their purchase. The measure would also ban the sale [of] both high-capacity rifles and magazines with more than 10 rounds.
My Comments:
About that first sentence: These requirements are entirely reasonable. Even though the Second Amendment defines the keeping and bearing of arms as a "right," this is not a God-given right. It is a man-created "right" subject to man-created enforcement and refinement-of-definition. It is also a right in competition with other rights.
About that second sentence: If Sarah Merkle were to voice objection to this, then why didn't she voice objection to the ban on private ownership of machine guns?
QUOTE:
Just last week, Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy signed into law one of the strongest and most comprehensive pieces of gun legislation in the country that deals with restrictions on weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines.
Malloy who promised to continue to fight for law changes that address gun violence, signed the legislation saying, "Today does not mark the end of our efforts."
My Comments:
"Today does not mark the end of our efforts." - I should hope not. Maybe those efforts could include addressing this nonsense, quoted from ATF Form 4473, aka Firearms Transaction Record:
"However, if Mr. Brown goes to buy a firearm with his own money to give to Mr. Black as a present, Mr. Brown is the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm and should answer “YES” to question 11.a. However, you may not transfer a firearm to any person you know or have reasonable cause to believe is prohibited under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), (n), or (x)."
Translation? If you, from a gun shop, buy a weapon meant as a gift for someone else, you have to have "reasonable cause to believe" the recipient isn't "prohibited under 18 U.S.C..." from acquiring this weapon. Why should the purchaser be required to confirm that which a background check would reveal?
Sarah Merkle doesn't address this nor the fact that background checks aren't, in many states, required for purchases from private individuals or at gun shows. It appears Ms. Merkle should be most profoundly known for what she didn't address.
A Tale of Two Articles
- Article II -
Here's the second of two articles (see Footnote 2) from which I'm going to select quotes, each followed by my comments.
QUOTE:
In her speech, Merkle cited an incident in China in which a man stabbed 23 children and an elderly woman on the same day as the school shooting in Newtown, Conn., as evidence that guns are not the problem in mass violence.
My Comment:
(sigh)...Guns are not the problem in mass violence but they are surely part of the problem. Besides, for most people, I dare say, it's a lot harder to stab than shoot a lot of people.
QUOTE:
[Sarah Merkle] cited statistics showing people are twice as likely to be killed in Chicago [even though Chicago has some of the strictest anti-gun legislation in the country] as in the war in Afghanistan, and the majority of the shooting deaths in Chicago are from handguns, not high-capacity rifles.
My Comments:
There are two very real wars being cited here - one in Chicago and one in Afghanistan. Merkle's comment could be read to mean, "Given the comparatively lower casualties in Afghanistan, perhaps that's evidence we're not conducting that war as aggressively as we could." The War in Chicago could be escalated by means of Mayor Rahm Emanuel asking for war zone sectors to be patrolled by the National Guard. But, no. Instead Rahm prefers to give advance warning to drug dealers that his cops are going to be setting up sting operations in their neighborhoods. Question: Why should they be warned in advance? Answer: This is Rahm's way of showing he can play nice with these people, though of course he'll want something in return: A decrease in the murder rate that he can crow about as he pursues his bid for the US presidency.
The vast majority of shooting deaths in Chicago are indeed by handguns, but that's simply because they're cheaper. This statistic, however, doesn't mean lawmakers don't have the right to reduce the death toll caused by high-capacity rifles (excuse me, I meant to say, "...caused by people who use high-capacity rifles").
The missing element is that we lack the martial law approach needed in certain of Chicago's neighorhoods. There is indeed a war going on, so I don't think the public at large would object to police subjecting groups of youths (or even single, randomly chosen individuals on the street) to a stop-and-frisk policy. Anyone caught with an illegal gun should be jailed for 20 years; that should be a sufficient deterrent. As I said, a state of war exists in certain Chicago neighborhoods, so we should respond accordingly. However, part of a just response would be to increase economic opportunities for gang members so they can break the cycle of poverty in this, the most segregated city in the nation.
QUOTE:
Merkle also argued that the majority of shootings occur in low-income areas and that by raising the cost of gun ownership with higher licensing and registration fees, it would deny lower-income individuals the opportunity to defend themselves by owning a gun.
My Comments:
If cost is a factor, then why doesn't Merkle argue in favor of providing every citizen with a government-subsided gun? If we really have the right to keep and bear arms, then the poor should be enabled to protect themselves, yes? And yet, Merkle says nothing about this.
QUOTE:
“The entire foundation of the United States was formed on the principle that the government, our government, is a government of the people, for the people, by the people, and taking away the people’s right to bear arms is taking away the people’s power in the government,’’ she said.
My Comments:
This government is comprised of duly-elected lawmakers who represent the people's wish for a greater degree of public safety. Nobody is "taking away the people's right to bear arms." And, to put a finer point on the matter, the Second Amendment wasn't intended to give people "power in the government." It was intended as a check on the possibility that that government might seek to oppress its own citizens.
A lot of NRA types point to how the Nazis used gun-control legislation in order to seize privately owned weapons. The problem wasn't the legislation itself but was We-the-People voting totalitarians into power in the first place. Someone once said, "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." I would change that to, "Eternal vigilance by more than just a small dedicated group is the price of liberty." However, therein lies the rub. Not enough people are sufficiently civic-minded to pay this price. Apparently, the NRA knows this, which is why they overly-obsess on gun control issues, while overlooking the vigilance needed to protect the rest of our liberties.
There's more to liberty than just the right to own a gun.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle, former candidate for US President (in 2008 and 2012)
Founder of the Independent Contractors' Party
"Unless we become better people, we can't expect better government."
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
Footnote 1: "Teen Girl's Pro-Gun Video Gets 2.3 Million Hits," by Jilian Fama, ABC OTUS News (4/8/13)
Footnote 2: http://www.today.com.... recent article by Scott Strump:(selected quotes):
No comments:
Post a Comment