Are liberals self-destructing?
by Tom Gaylord
The AP reported on June 12 that two Amherst, Mass. middle school students were banned from competing in the State Science Fair because their study to prove how dangerous BB guns are was too dangerous – because it involved BB guns! Massachusetts State Science Fair Vice President, Nancy G. Degon, said, "The scientific review committee does not consider science projects involving firearms to be safe for middle school students."
Firearms, indeed! Perhaps this is one reason the Second Amendment is in jeopardy from groups who don't even know why the Bill of Rights was written.
I can't argue with Ms. Degon about the safety aspect of the subject experiment. But it is not clear that it was ever given a review for safety concerns. One would hope the boys didn't plan on shooting a BB gun in public while the fair was in progress!
The ironic twist is the two boys were attempting to prove how UNsafe BB guns can be! Yet they were denied their forum by the science fair. Maybe this trauma will turn them from the dark side to question why we even HAVE a Bill of Rights and, perhaps, why the ACLU defends nine of the ten while attacking gun ownership.
If liberals continue to disallow discussion of certain topics, will that ultimately result in a Newspeak syndrome? You gotta hope so.
posted by Tom Gaylord @ 4:03 PM
8 comments
8 Comments:
Wow. Calm down. First of all, it wasn't the "liberals" who rejected the students project, it was the SRC, the Scientific Review Committee.
Secondly, if you had any familiarity with modern science fair projects at all, you would know that projects are rejected all the time for all sorts of reasons. There is a laundry list of various subjects that are considered either inappropriate or questionable for middle school kids to pursue or for them to display in crowded auditoriums, as well as strict rules and protocols that must be followed. To make the system fair for everybody, the rules are strictly enforced. Don't like the rules? Don't play the game.
I will save you a little work, so here is a direct link to the rules:
http://www.scifair.com/rules.htm
Finally, if you want to make sweeping generalizations in your blog, that's fine, but you do your readers and yourself a disservice by resorting to labels and tired characterizations.
Pardner, I thank you for your comments.
As for what I said, I thought it was clear that my beef was with the way this situation was handled. I said I agreed with Ms. Degon that a public venue is not a good place to fire a BB gun. But the data could have been submitted and the project allowed to compete. I notice that after the two students raised a fuss, they were invited to submit their data to a select review board, but that was an act of appeasement after the fact, and, if that isn't the clear sign of a liberal organization in action, I don't know what is!
I also noted that Ms. Degon called a BB gun a "firearm." Of course it isn't, and I don't expect that she knows that, but it does point out the ambiguity that the governing body operates under, when they condem a thing for being something it isnt. Sort of like calling a semiautomatic rifle a machine gun, or an "assault rifle," when Adolf Hitler clearly defined what an assault rifle (sturmgewhehr) has to be.
I stand by my statement that liberals haven't a clue what the first amendment to the Bill of Rights means. They think it gives individuals the right to say anything they want, when it actually does no such thing The sad thing is, most conservatives also don't know what it is, and that is dangerous.
Liberals want to redefine our rights through obfuscation and the slippery slope of political correctness, and I'm sorry more conservative-thinking citizens are not aware of what their rights truly are. It's easier to take a thing away from someone who doesn't know he has it to begin with.
And just in case you don't understand what I am driving at, I'm really referring to the second amendment - the one the ACLU wants repealed.
The two boys in Mass. were actually trying to uphold the liberal viewpoint of the dangers of BB guns, and they got shut down by their own people!
Ha, ha!
Tom
Despite the rebuttal to your original post about self-destructing liberals, its clear that it was afterall a liberal mindset that would make such a call.
Sure science fairs and such have all sorts of criteria - and with each theres a different mindset configuration to be sure by the judges. To even assume for a second though that this is anything but typical liberal neurotic fear of ANY gun is pure naive folly.
He can take his "Wow" anbd other blather and sell it somewhere else.
Oh, by the way, my RX2 doesnt diesel - does that mean its LESS firearm than one that does ?
It was a fair call the first time - though his rebuttal was all of what you would expect.
Pete
Wow. I've lived in a community described by us "conservatives" as the most liberal in the US for 30 years, and if there's one thing I've learned, it's that we conservatives learned everything we know about liberals from the media.
This is the community where Barbara Boxer lives for god's sake, and I can't find a gun grabbing, abortion forcing, tree ugger for the life of me. The stereotypes do someone of your stature a huge disservice, Tom. They are just that - stereotypes, and aren't based at all in reality.
I shoot my airguns in the backyard every day, surrounded by what you must think are the most vile liberals on earth, and have never had a complaint. In fact, while my liberal neighbors are concerned about a different set of issues than I am, they ALL own firearms or support my right to own them (and airguns). No offense, but blaming liberals is simply a cop out.
My son did his science project on the effects of temperature on shotgun patterns - and displayed it alongside kids who counted red-leged frogs and measured pollution in the local creek. Not a single liberal stopped to complain about the dangerous guns involved in my sons project (and this county voted for John Kerry 85%).
Todd,
I'm not worried about my comments on liberals. Your neighbors sound like decent folks. They are the people who populate most of the U.S. While they may vote Democrat at the polls, they are not the liberals I refer to in my message. I am talking about the activists who aggressively campaign to shut down the Second Amendment. And don't kid yourself - they do exist and in very great numbers!
I lived in San Jose for 10 years, during which time I shot all I wanted, bought guns and was the Deputy Marshall at a western amusement park where I participated in gunfights using actual firearms. California was a wonderful place for a shooter - in the 1960s. Today, however, there are caliber restrictions, fingerprint requirements for ammunition purchase and laws against storing firearms in reasonable proximity to ammunition! If that isn't an encroachment on the Second Amendment, what is?
No, California is not the state to hold up as a bastion of citizen's rights. It's a pseudo-nation of socialism, and an excellent example of government gone to seed. And the liberals - by which I mean political engineers who believe that government must control and direct the actions of its citizens for their best interests - are almost entirely in charge.
The only possible hope Californians have is that the Democratic party is becoming more grotesque by the day. To correct the wrongs done during the last presidential election may possibly mean the outing of their worst and most frightening freaks! Maybe then the people will finally see that the emperor has no clothes.
Tom
Well anyway, anti-gun nuts are getting their feet stuck in the anti-airgun door. Several cities, Dallas is one, will probably pass laws with a year that limit which "realistic" guns can and cannot be sold inside city limits. Airgunners had better wake up and heed the news blurbs. After those laws, what's next? European limits?
Tom - While I respect your airgun writing, this 'liberal' slam was really unreasonable and uncalled for. Well, well beneath you. In my experience, there are wackos at BOTH ends of the spectrum - and all through the middle. When you say that "...they are not the liberals I refer to in my message." -- it reeks of legalistic disingenuity. Kind of like using the N-word, and then going on to clarify that you weren't referring to "the 'decent' black folk". Tom, 'liberals' brought you the Social Security system you are now or will soon be enjoying the benefits of. My recommendation - deal 'socialism' a death blow and send your checks to ME! Otherwise, learn to live and play well with others, and work to correct seeming wrongs - without sneeringly condemning and insulting them.
You MUST be joking if you think I am happy about Social Security!!! It has siphoned off so much of every American's income and now threatens to not pay it back! I would be much happier to manage my own money than to let the government do it - when it is clear they can't even manage their own budget.
I do agree that there are bad apples on both sides, but everything I said about the liberal point of view stands.
As for YOUR inference that I made (or intended to make - what a liberal point of view, that you know what I intend when I don't mention it) racial slurs, I don't think you can find any.
As for living and playing with others - that's exactly what I do. YOU must do the same - without the "GIVErnment" dictating to either of us what the rules for that society should be.
Please note that although YOU choose anonymity, I will sign my name to this. Disingenuous? Vous?
And I'm happy you like the airgun talk, which is what this blog is about.
Tom Gaylord
Post a Comment
<< Home