Wednesday, October 11, 2017

Pore ol' Tom

Tom Brokaw, that is.  Yeah, that Tom Brokaw, who pens a piece at the NBC website about guns.  He tries first to establish his bona-fides.
I am a gun owner and have been since I was 12, growing up in South Dakota. I still have an assortment of shotguns and rifles, all used for sporting purposes.
Good for you, Tom, I didn't realize that.  You own guns and hunt.  Good for you. 

But he really doesn't like "military" guns.  And misunderstand the law.
But the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to bear any arms you please. Fully automatic weapons have long been illegal to buy, as have bazookas and artillery pieces our troops take to war.
That's interesting, Tom.  I don't know any prohibition on buying either rocket launchers or artillery.  Or tanks.  I know of several folks (and a quick Google search would reveal more) who own those very things.  It's an expensive hobby, like your ranch in Montana, but it's not illegal.

Then he brings up the First Amendment canard.
I am a journalist, protected by the First Amendment. “Congress shall make no law,” it says, except that all journalists know they cannot, among other acts, deliberately libel a person or falsely shout fire in a crowded theater without legal consequences.
You're absolutely right Tom, and it's still against the law to murder people.  I'm sure that if I shoot someone there might be consequences.  Just like if you libel someone there might be consequences.  So what's your point?

I would think that a "respected" journalist like Tom Brokaw could come up with a better argument than this, but he printed it, didn't he?


Anonymous said...

It is interesting that while he claims to want a conversation,there is no way to comment.

Dennis the librarian shusher

Dave said...

It's also worth nothing that, at least up until the Civil War, if not beyond, there were plenty of militia units that were equipped with artillery (the Washington Artillery of New Orleans, for example).

There's a well known historical photo of a free state militia cannon crew with their piece in Kansas, circa 1856. Given that the 'official' territorial government at the time was pro-slavery (I say 'official' because it had been voted in mostly by votes from border-crossing Missourians.), that cannon had to be privately funded. A pro-slavery government wouldn't have given weapons to a free state militia.

Jonathan H said...

I know that during the Spanish American War, artillery and gatling guns were provided to local units by subscriptions from locals.

Yes, He published it - but did he actually write it, or has he become a talking head that parrots what others write for him?