The text of the article was no less exploitative. “Only in America are gun massacres of this kind routine, expectable, and certain to continue,” Gopnik wrote. Why can’t we be more like the tiny, statist European countries? Requisite anti-Americanism? Check. Libel of Second Amendment supporting Americans (“the blood lobby”)? Also check.
Fortunately for us ignorant regular folk clinging to our guns and religion, Rushdie and Gopnik turned out to be constitutional scholars, as well. Both men wrote that the Second Amendment really just meant the right to a well-regulated militia. “Individual right to bear arms survived by a 5-4 vote in the Supreme Court (DC v Heller, 2008), powerful dissents. This argument isn't over,” Rushdie said. Of course, they cited no Founding Father, least of all Federalist 46, in which Madison argues that the American people would be difficult to oppress because they are well-armed. What did Rushdie say to someone who, albeit in a less articulate manner, argued the same? “congrats, sir or madam, you get the prize for dumbest right wing remark.” [sic]Too bad President Madison isn’t here to defend himself.
It just goes to show, as so much else does too, that for the Left, all that matters is your intentions. If you need evidence of this, look at their stubbornness about their policies in the teeth of all results; they never sell us their ideas based on their results, only on their quixotic hopes. The same principle applies here: as long as you’re one of the good guys, go ahead, make a few jokes, call a few names. Hey, it’s for a good cause.
The paparazzi treatment of the whole affair as a commoditized news story is, despite its hideousness, predictable. I had hoped that exploiting the innocent victims of a random and senseless act was not.