Politics is a lot about perception, and if you had complete transparency, it would make bluffing and posturing a lot harder. For the same reasons you can’t have transparency in poker, you can’t really have it in grading.This post was the result of an exchange (slightly off-topic) about how the NRA computes their 'ratings'. It is my contention that the ratings (or grades, however you want to put it) should be arrived at by a definite formula; one that is easy to duplicate (and check for accuracy) and open to all.
Sebastian disagrees, and thinks that the current, nebulous issuance of ratings is what keeps politicians on their toes.
Because this is just a big game to Sebastian .... high stakes, to be sure, but still a game.
It's not a game to me.
In the two+ years that Otis McDonald waited for the Supreme Court to rule that, yes, he really does have a right to own a handgun for protection*, it's also possible that he could have been seriously injured or killed during a crime.
After all, it was the result of a couple of break-ins that made him decide to be armed in the first place.
That's the really insidious thing about the 'lets take it slow and easy' approach; while some are taking it 'slow and easy', people are dying for lack of defensive arms.
So if you live in a jurisdiction where firearms are restricted, my advice is to get one, no matter what it takes, no matter how far you have to go to get it. Frequent gun shows (fuck you, Dennis Henegan), ask your hunting buddies; hell, if you have to, go see your local drug dealer.
You, as a human being, have a natural right to protect yourself - and you deserve to be as well armed as the thugs** who would prey upon you.
pm
* What SCOTUS really decided was that you had a natural right to self-defense; the legality of it means you may own a handgun.
** Whether they wear uniforms or not
No comments:
Post a Comment