By John Feinstein, writing in the Washington Post on the Plaxico Burress incident, seems a bit confused.

The easiest thing in the world today would be to focus on what a moron Burress is. He’s a moron for allegedly carrying an unlicensed gun into a crowded bar, endangering himself and others. He’s a moron because he signed a five-year, $35 million contract at the start of this season and then was suspended for one game for failing to show up for practice and team meetings — and not bothering to tell anyone.

But that really isn’t the issue.

Okay, John, tell us what the real issue is.

The real issue — once again — is athletes and guns.

Surprise, surprise.

This isn’t about safety, it is about arrogance. The fact that Burress, according to Giants General Manager Jerry Reese, hadn’t returned his phone calls, tells you how arrogant he is.

Wait a minute. Just a couple sentences ago it wasn’t about Burress, it was about guns. Now it’s about arrogance. Who is it that’s arrogant, John? Is the gun arrogant? Or is it the moron?

He brings up Sean Taylor, the former Redskins player who was killed by home invaders with a gun.

One year ago it was written here that if [Redskins owner] Dan Snyder and [coach] Joe Gibbs really wanted to see some good come from the tragedy, they would use their money and influence to lobby for stricter gun laws.

Ah, see the incident where two morons invaded someone else’s home and shot him to death wasn’t about morons or crime (or even arrogance, I guess) but it was, instead also about “athletes and guns.”

Except, of course, that if the athlete in this case had had a gun instead of a machete he might be alive today.

John seems to think that two criminals breaking into a house and shooting the homeowner is grounds for stricter controls on law-abiding citizens.

His solution, of course:

The owners and players should agree that players can’t own handguns.

And he’s ready for those whiners who think a God-given right is some sort of God-given right:

Now, let’s not start screaming about the Second Amendment. To begin with, the amendment should be abolished — a sensible interpretation of the amendment is that it was written to allow the people to raise a militia for protection and to hunt for food.

Get that? John thinks the Second Amendment “should be abolished” because a “sensible interpretation” means that it was about government militias and hunting.

Got news for you, John. Your common sense has failed you. The Second Amendment is not about either hunting or government militias. Until earlier this year your point was up for debate. No longer.

It would be nice if President-elect Obama had the time to focus his energies on repeal of the Second Amendment

Ah. There we have it. John wants us to listen to his arguments about whatever it is he thinks the real issue is and whatever it is he thinks the solution is. But the foundation of everything he’s saying seems to be his personal belief that part of the Bill of Rights needs to be repealed.

How about another article that goes something like:

1. John Feinstein is a moron
2. But that isn’t the real issue
3. The real issue is arrogance
4. Something needs to be done about this
5. It would be nice if President-elect Obama had the time to focus his energies on repeal of the First Amendment

Make much sense?

Tags: DC, NY

This entry was posted on Tuesday, December 2nd, 2008 at 9:02 am and is filed under 2nd, Antis, Crime and Violence, Media. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.