Wednesday, 7 July 2010
The other day, I was reading the New York Post over a bagel.
I love writing that sentence. It makes me feel like Woody Allen, except with more hair and fewer love affairs with my stepchildren.
Anyway, the New York Post is a bit like The Sun back home, but sillier. Nevertheless, it has its serious opinion columns. I was particularly baffled by a column from Bill O’Reilly, who I suppose is a transatlantic Richard Littlejohn. He’s writing about gun legislation. Many Americans love their guns, of course, and are very defensive of their rights to own them.
Whatever. There are two schools of thought on that, and I’m in the camp which doesn’t favour home weaponry. But if I were in the other camp, I reckon I could make my case better than Bill O’Reilly. Bill is angry with four Supreme Court Justices (“liberal jurists” as he angrily describes them) who voted last week against a Chicago man’s right to own a handgun. They lost the vote, because five others voted in favour. Bill’s angry anyway.
“They opined that guns cause a lot of damage to society”, complains Bill. “But where in the Constitution does it say that if guns become a menace to society they can be banned?”
Oh, Bill. You don’t want to try arguing that guns AREN’T a menace to society? You don’t fancy having a stab at the argument that they protect and deter more than they damage and attack? No? You want to concede that they’re a bad thing but insist on having them anyway? Back to the school debating club for you.