Think of the worst teacher at your child’s school. Would you want him or her carrying a gun at school?
Not surprisingly, a lot of callers are saying, “no.”
One of the callers had the intelligent retort:
If you’re talking about just that one teacher, then the answer’s no. But if all the teachers could carry, then sure.
After all, those in favor of gun carry believe that knowing anyone could be carrying tends to discourage bad behavior. As the saying goes, “an armed society is a polite society.”
To illustrate the stupidity of Hewitt’s question, rephrase it by replacing the word “teacher” with “police officer” or “soldier” or “FBI agent” or anyone else who could carry a gun. The answer’s still “no.”
But in a free society we don’t grant “privileges” based on whether the worst of us will abuse them. We deny rights only for good reason and after due process.
Hewitt seems to think that just because the majority of parents would answer “no” to his question that it’s a good idea to ban teachers from carrying handguns on campus. I wonder if he’d also agree that it would also be a good idea to ban lawyers from being able to be talk show hosts on the AM dial. I bet we could get a majority in favor of that proposal, too.
Quotes might not be exactly word for word. After all, I’m a blogger, not a court transcriber. They do carry the central thought as accurately as I heard and can remember. Your mileage may vary. Do not fold, spindle or mutilate this post. Do not eat. This is not a toy. Do not use while bathing or standing in a bucket of water. See software user’s guide for patent information. Caution: Contents Hot. For external use only.
Ann Coulter spoke at CPAC last night. At the end of her speech, she said:
I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word “faggot,” so I’m — so I’m kind of at an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards.
Incredibly stupid. It’s really sad to see Coulter flush her credibility like that.
I believe a couple of apologies are in order.
Also unfortunate was the amount of laughter and applause in response to the CPAC. Maybe it was “polite” laughter (how’s that for irony?), but… I’ll withhold judgment because I can’t tell what percentage of the audience was responding positively. I truly hope it was a very small percentage.
Hugh Hewitt has a great post on the matter. Some commenters take Hugh to task for being too PC, because, after all, the Dems call names too. That’s not a convincing argument for me. We should be debating ideas, not calling names. Let’s raise the level of discourse, not race for the gutter.
In the closing weeks of the campaign season, I felt like I was a lawyer who had a bad client while writing this blog. That client was the Republican Party which had broken its Contract with America from 1994 and had become unmoored from its conservative principles. As its advocate, I couldn’t make a more compelling case for Republicans staying in power than the fact that the Democrats would be worse. I believed in that case, but when that’s all the party gave its advocates to work with, you can honestly conclude that Republicans got this drubbing the old fashioned way — we earned it.
Mark Halperin, ABC News’ political director, in an interview by Hugh Hewitt, wants consumers to judge the news media solely on their results, but is unwilling to provide the information necessary to evaluate. Give your MP3 player a break from music to listen to the three-hour interview (it’s shorter without the ads).