When reading “Rules for Radicals” by Alinsky it is important to notice the power of ridicule.
“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. Saul D. Alinsky
Of course I think that Saul is wrong, I believe that explaining why someone’s uninformed and poor attempt at ridicule is uninformed and out of touch can in fact be a defense from ridicule.
Dana starts off strong with an exaggeration:
The days are growing colder, and millions of American hunters will soon pursue a time-honored tradition. They will load their automatic weapons with armor-piercing bullets, strap on silencers, head off to the picnic grounds on nearby public lakes — and start shooting.
If you can’t tell the difference between “automatic weapons” and “semi-automatic firearms” you probably don’t deserve the editorial space wasted on such blathering. And many ecologically minded hunters are in fact using “armor piercing bullets” to hunt with, because the Federal definition of “armor piercing” includes all copper bullets, which are required in some areas to protect carrion feeder birds such as the California Condor. Of course if Dana knew any of this, he doesn’t care because he has an agenda to push!
But maybe, just maybe Dana actually tried to do some homework, and huzzah, came up with this list!
* Allowing people to bring assault guns and other weapons through jurisdictions where they are banned.
* Rolling back decades-old regulations on the use of silencers.
* Protecting the use of armor-piercing bullets.
* Easing importation of foreign-made assault rifles.
* Protecting the practice of baiting birds with grain as they migrate and then mowing them down.
Oh…swing and a miss Dana.
First, “assault gun” isn’t a legal term, nor does it describe any sort of actual firearm.
Secondly, the Firearm Owners Protection Act already provides protections for citizens bringing firearms through jurisdictions, this legislation is needed because places like New York City think Federal law just doesn’t apply to them.
Third, the “decades-old regulations on the use of silencers” is in fact nothing of the sort, as suppressors have been perfectly legal to use for decades only requiring an onerous tax stamp.
Fourth “easing importation of foreign-made assault rifles” is also a lie, because an “assault rifle” is legally defined as a select fire weapon, none of which are allowed to be imported due to the 1986 FOPA which restricted the importation of machine guns (if it ain’t a machine gun, it ain’t an assault rifle).
And finally “protecting the practice of baiting birds with grain as they migrate and then mowing them down” is a deliberate lie to allow hunters to set up blinds in harvested fields without being fined for leftover grain being on the ground.
So yeah, Dana strikes out on EVERY SINGLE POINT that he brings up. It must be because he has never hunted, never used a firearm in competition, and has no clue that armor piercing bullets for rifles have always been legal, and the biggest supplier to American shooters has historically been…the US Federal Government. 30-06 AP rounds were preferred by many match shooters because they did better at long range than M2 ball, and were easier to get than M72 match ball… Even surplussed M855 bullets are still commonly found on the market, as they are perfectly adequate for 200 yard reduced distance High Power matches.
So yes, there are lots of legitimate reasons to have a semi-automatic rifle that fires armor piercing bullets. Dana’s idiotic implication that only “hunting” is the proper use for a firearm shows exactly how ignorant, uninformed, and unwilling to be educated he is.
But what else would you expect from a “radical”?
If you want to read Dana’s drivel in its entirety, http://journalstar.com/opinion/columnists/dana-milbank-nra-dead-wrong-on-recreation/article_07388cba-b2b2-5b36-ad4d-0f1e976bdad9.html However it will only serve to show you exactly how deceptive, low, and unscrupulous he is to deliberately push lies and falsehoods in order to advance his preferred political cause. His argument is a fallacy, and he is in fact a morally bankrupt person for advancing it.
Now, maybe Dana or some other person will take umbrage at my honesty in describing Dana as he is, a deliberate liar. If Dana is a journalist, then he is either incompetent beyond employment, or he in fact deliberately chose to ignore relevant facts to advance an agenda. I’m sure a third option exists, but I can’t think of one where Dana is an innocent dupe without falling into the first two options. There are two ways to lie, one is to tell a blatant falsehood, and the second is to withhold truth, and by his own words under his own byline Dana Milbank has done both.
“Oh it’s just satire!” May be an acceptable defense in the court of law, but if his words are deliberate satire they are then deliberate insults to millions of Americans. Imagine how low of a moral character you must be to defend your honesty with the explanation that you only did it to be deliberately insulting.
Then again, maybe Dana truly is as incompetent as his words make him out to be, and maybe he has an employer with a certain political bent who isn’t interested in researched fact, only satirical hyperbole. Maybe Dana is just preaching to the choir, or attempting to, “Oh look at all the dumb hicks in flyover country killing animals with firearms!”
Newsflash to Dana, you want Trump? Cause that’s how you got Trump.