Intelligentsia

Just finished watching the video posted by Breda here

At least go read Breda’s post for the play-by-play recap. My take: Megan McCain and Rachel Maddow walk the NRA show floor and talk about how they support the 2nd Amendment and like guns, but they know nothing about guns, gun laws, but think guns should be banned and rights should be infringed. In the end they both shake hands and agree we need more “Common Sense Gun Laws” that restrict things they don’t understand.

Now I’ll go the extra step and point out that Meghan McCain is a stupid person. She’s done nothing bright that I’ve ever seen, and doesn’t appear to know much about anything at all. Seems her big selling point is #1. Her asshole Dad ran for President, #2. She’s a good-looking blond.

I will not say that about Rachel Maddow. She by all accounts appears to be an intelligent, well-educated, and well read. But of course she and Ms. McCain know nothing about guns, or gun rights.

Brings me to Sean’s post on Ruling Intellectuals. The take away is that there is a vast gulf between intelligent and omnipotent, and it seems that any sort of talk of an Intelligentsia seems to involve people making decisions for others that are outside the realm of their knowledge….even scarier still is these ignorant decisions will be made for the people who actually are experts on the issue.

I’m the furthest thing from a Pol Pot who executed people for wearing eyeglasses simply because those were tools worn by intellectuals, but I am quick to know that no matter how smart somebody is they don’t know everything, and one must be cautious of people who are afraid to say “I don’t know” or “I’m not well versed in that subject”.

This entry was posted in Freedom, Guns, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to Intelligentsia

  1. Bubblehead Les says:

    When I heard that the NRA allowed them into the Con, my first thought was “WTF? If the NRA Leadership thought that these 2 Yammerheads would change their thinking about the 2A and Gunnies, they must be dumber than bag of rocks”.

    Looks like I was correct. Thank God we have the 2 Alans and the SAF.

    • Weerd Beard says:

      I have no problem with them being allowed in, and even this miserable and ignorant broadcast being taped.

      There were far more people on that floor that actually understand and will fight for the 2nd Amendment than these fools.

      No need to exclude, for by their very foolishness they have no power, and maybe, just maybe we can win a few of them over by their inclusion.

  2. Suz says:

    McCain? Pfft!
    Maddow? Very bright, but yes, her scope is limited. I rarely watch her, but I’d LOVE to see what she could do with this issue if she’d take the time to understand it. Sensible gun laws, stupid gun laws, the cost and inefficiency of enforcing gun laws, and most of all – the utter IRRELEVANCE of gun laws in the lives of people who use guns to commit crimes!

    • Weerd Beard says:

      She certainly shows more potential than most anti-gun people.
      http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2009/09/01/maddow-love-guns-i-just-dont-think-we-should-be-allowed-bring-them-home

      She regularly goes to shooting ranges in New York where she can rent handguns, but she doesn’t own any herself and doesn’t think others should.

      There’s a lot of culture there. She’s from Massachusetts and living in New York, so there’s a good chance she’s never really experienced the American Gun Culture to see the good sides (and certainly the trip to the NRA Con was a political stunt, not an actual personal trip)

      Also she’s a liberal woman, and lesbian, two groups that both have a lot to gain from gun ownership, but also shun it for bizarre reasons.

      The bottom line is she could very well turn the corner on the issue, but the big and hardest step (I should know, I was there) is to be willing to admit you were wrong.

      Some people its easier to BE wrong than to admit it. I don’t fully understand that, but I see it in action all the time.

      • Suz says:

        “…I just don’t think we should be allowed to bring them home,”
        “… just leave it there, it’s a game.”

        Interesting perspective, if awfully naive and sheltered. I suppose to some people, it is just a game, but that’s hardly the point. She has a talent for getting to the point; I hope someday she pursues this one.

  3. Thanks for the link. It all boils down to the question of who should be sovereign. We say that the people should be sovereign. The “Left,” whether Socialist, Communist, Democrat, Progressive, or whatever, agree with the old Monarchists and the Nazis that the State(tm) should be sovereign.

  4. Linoge says:

    As an infinitely wiser-than-me man once said, “Expertise in one field does not carry over into other fields. But experts often think so. The narrower their field of knowledge the more likely they are to think so.”

    Strange how well the anti-rights cultists prove that point…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *