August 14, 2004 by s.z.

Armed and Objectivist  It seems that Seb is off on another one of his Andrew Sullivanesque vacations (and Pete has returned to that Fortress of Solitude known as The Dark Window), so once again  Sadly, No! is shirking its Amber Pawlik responsibilities.  So, I will endeavor in my own (very) meager way to brief you on Amber's latest column, which is about the assault weapon ban. The first thing that strikes me about the “assault weapon” ban is the name. Apparently the designers of the bill were never taught what soldiers are taught at basic training. This is my weapon. This is my gun. This one’s for killing. This one’s for fun. I never would have never thought of that rhyme when considering the assault weapon ban, but then I guess I'm not as fixated on, um, soldierly equipment as Amber is.  But is she claiming that the liberals are planning on banning penises next?  (Oh, and I heard the quote as "This is my RIFLE, this is my gun," and I learned it from Full Metal Jacket, not basic training.) Something does not become a “weapon” until someone uses it with the intent to kill someone. Really?  So back in October when Amber said that she was "sold on going to war with Iraq" because "Saddam may have been putting together a nuclear weapon," she meant that not only did Saddam actually have such a device, but that he had used it with the intent to kill someone. Anything can be a “weapon.” In the game of Clue alone, the weapons include: a knife, rope, revolver, wrench, lead pipe, and candlestick. But only if you use those little plastic and metal pieces with the intent of killing someone. What will probably shock most people is that the firearms that were banned were not banned because of how much damage they can cause. They were banned, essentially, because they look scary. Really what they should call it is the “Scary-looking firearms to people who are emotionally driven and have never handled a firearm” ban. Yes, that's a much better name!  Or how about the "Military-style firearms to people who are gang members, criminals, and spree killers supported by emotionally-driven young women who have never had a thought about the subject not handed to them by the NRA" ban. Leftists are more worried about semi-automatic firearms in the hands of law-abiding, regular citizens than they are of nuclear weapons in the hands of Saddam Hussein. (Ask yourself why). Because Saddam is in custody now, and doesn't have (nor did he ever) any nuclear weapons? The ban on various semiautomatic firearms is an attack on the individual rights of regular citizens. How regular are citizens who want to own "A semiautomatic rifle that can accept a detachable magazine and has more than one of the following features: pistol grip, folding or telescoping stock, flash suppressor, threaded barrel, grenade launcher, or bayonet lug"?  Fortunately, it will likely expire in September. Let’s make sure it doesn’t return. Some background from Knight Ridder: Both Bush and Kerry support extending the assault weapons ban, which expires Sept. 13. But the National Rifle Association doesn't, and so far efforts to pass an extension have failed. Advocates of the ban say Bush could have done more but has paid only lip service to the issue [...] NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and NRA chief lobbyist Chris Cox have been guests at Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas. And from the LA Times: A poll released last month found nearly 80% of Americans support renewing the 10-year-old ban on the manufacture and sale of certain semiautomatic assault guns. That ban expires Sept. 13. Even a majority of gun owners have told pollsters they think the ban on such murderous weapons makes sense. Most senators seem to agree: An amendment reauthorizing the ban passed in March, 52 to 47, but the larger bill to which it was attached died. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) hasn't allowed a vote since, and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), who admitted last week that the measure "might have a chance on the floor," has blocked all votes. Look to the National Rifle Assn. for the reason why. Killing the assault ban is one of the group's top goals. In years past, Bush said he supported the ban, but these days he's anxious to win the NRA's endorsement, as he did in 2000. So he has stayed mum, and GOP leaders won't put him on the spot by sending a renewed ban to his desk. Maybe the inaction of Bush and GOP lawmakers will help the president among his most conservative supporters, but it is against what most Americans see as their best interests. So, Amber, it looks like you might not have to do anything to get rid of the ban, since the NRA is taking care of it for you. 6:19:30 AM

Banning Gay Marriage For the Sake of the Spinsters The wingnuts are all worked up about the James McGreevey resignation, insisting that they would have been perfectly okay with him being gay, and with him having an extramarital affair, and with his lover blackmailing him -- you know, if that's all there was to this matter.  But fortunately for them, McGreevey gave his lover a state job which the Israeli national wasn't qualified for, so the nuts can legitimately froth at the mouth about a Democratic governor's sex scandal while pretending that they couldn't care less about the sexual aspects of the case.  (No, it's all about Homeland Security!) Anyway, one of the more original commentaries on the case of "gay American" McGreevey (who is married for the second time, and the father of two small children) comes from Rabbi Shmuley Boteach.  In a column that includes some sensible and compassionate points, he also writes the following: There are two kinds of gay men, those who, amid strong homosexual inclination, still harbor an attraction to women, and those who harbor none. Studies show that the overwhelming number of gay men are, like James McGreevey, in the former category. They are capable of having sex with a woman, and indeed 90 percent of gay men admit to having done so. It is for this reason that society should not legalize gay marriage and elevate it to the same plane as heterosexual marriages, because there is then no incentive for these men, who are in essence bisexual, to make an effort to direct their erotic focus toward women and raise their heterosexual attraction above their same-sex one. Yup, if gay marriage was legal, then men like McGreevey would never marry women, and what a tragedy THAT would be!  You know, for the women.  Even fully heterosexual men must learn sexual discipline within marriage by being monogamous amidst their natural attraction to many women. And there is nothing cruel in encouraging men who have an attraction to both sexes to try and focus their sexual desire on women rather than on men. Indeed, gay men who are attracted to women usually make much better husbands and fathers since they are usually softer, gentler, more domesticated and more nurturing than their heterosexual counterparts. Yes, imagine what a great husband Will would make for Grace, if only he could manage to have sex with her once or twice during the marriage, so she'd have a kid or two to occupy herself with while he went out "with the guys." Indeed, if men with attraction to both sexes are not encouraged to explore their heterosexual attraction, we are condemning millions of women to lives of loneliness without husbands since the much higher proportion of gay men to lesbians creates a strong numerical imbalance between the sexes. Think of those poor women, condemned to lives of loneliness if we legalize gay marriage -- but they can all find fulfillment as wives and mothers if we don't.  Yes, that is the lesson of the McGreevey story. 4:53:00 AM

A Friend He Can Treat Like Crap From the Palm Beach Post: WASHINGTON — The most important woman in President Bush's political life is back on the payroll as of today. Longtime adviser and friend Karen Hughes traveled with Bush on the campaign trail this past week for the first time in the current election cycle. [...] Hughes sees her niche as sometimes strategist and full-time friend for the president, "someone to be on the road with the president, someone if he wants to talk to he can talk to and if he doesn't want to talk than he doesn't have to."  I hear that's also the appeal of hookers.  But being a paid friend is nothing like being a prostitute, of course. 3:18:55 AM