Caution: Heavy Satire content.
Much of the basis of liberal thought is based on 'contextual viability'. That is, the applicability of anything, either premise or action, depends on how that premise or action is perceived and received by the world in context.
F'rinstance, Ms. Jones in the US history class asks,
"Can someone identify a cause of the Revolutionary War?"
Susie raises her hand and announces,
"Because Bush gave the rich a tax cut."
Ms Jones then nods appreciatively. Not wanting to disturb Susie's sense of self-worth she says,
"Yes. Unreasonable and repressive tax laws, like those emphasized and promoted by the evil Bush, were one cause of the American Revolution."
Johnnie raises his hand, stands and says,
"The British were trying to seize the colonists' firearms at Concord."
Ms Jones looks sorrowful. Johnnie's self-worth be damned.
"No, Johnnie. Guns are evil and can never be mentioned in a positive manner, for any reason. Besides, modern historians like Michael A. Bellesiles, deny the colonists really had any evil guns anyway."
"Ms Jones," Johnny asks, "how did the colonists cede from England?"
"Civil disobedience, hugging trees and sharing our common experience, Johnny. Our independence was a historic and social inevitability."
Johnny then asks "Wasn't Bellesiles censured for fraudulent research and writing?"
Ms Jones looks stern.
"Johnnie, you're a reactionary troublemaker. Go to the principle's office for re-education processing!"
Or, explaining the recent victory of the (relatively) conservative presidential candidate and several congressmen and governors; and the passage of conservative marriage acts:
The target is 50 yards away, and primarily consists of a six-inch diameter black circle. The white background is two feet by two feet. The background and black circle are sub-divided into scoring 'rings' (concentric circles) with score values from '10x' to '4'. One stands on one's own two feet, holds the pistol with one hand, and fires ten rounds in ten minutes at the black circle. Scores are counted by award shot holes the value of the 'ring' they impact. Holes on a line are awarded the higher value. Holes outside the '4 ring' are considered visible misses and no points are awarded. A maximum score is 100 point with 10 'x' hits. The 'x' hits are for breaking ties.
There are rules covering what types of pistols may be used, but this is the basic set up.
Why is this so offensive to liberals?
First off, the whole discipline is based on personal responsibility. One must fire one's own rounds at one's own target. Only those rounds impacting within the scoring rings of one's own target count toward the score. If one fires at someone else's target, those rounds are lost. If one chooses not to fire one's rounds within the allotted time, those rounds are lost. In this game, one cannot escape the consequences of one's own actions.
Secondly, the standards and values are not subject to discussion. Arguing that an 'x' ring hit is essentially the same hole as a 4 ring hit will not improve the score. Demonstrating that this particular 4-ring hole is much neater and cleaner and is artistically superior to another's 'x' ring hole does not change the score.
Third, similar to point two, there are rules. Rules may not be changed anytime during the conduct of a match to accommodate those who do not shoot as well as others. On this note, those shooters with highly paid attorneys do not shoot better than those who do not. The rules are so limiting. As an example, one may not shoot into the observation gallery as a 'form of legitimate self-expression.'
Fourth, there are winners, and therefore, losers. The one with the most points wins. That means the one who worked the hardest at learning to shoot; the one who kept his firearm in the best shape; the one who paid the most attention to his ammunition; the one who maintained the greatest degree of self-control and self-discipline beat those who did not. Winners are not rotated. Not everyone is guaranteed to win at some point in the seasonal cycle.
So, those are the reasons liberals don't like shooting, and therefore, guns. Personal responsibility and discipline; Standards and values; Inviolate Rules; Self-esteem must be earned. Stuff like that just does not appeal to liberals. And then, there's that 'stand on their own two feet' thing.
But come to think of it, the objections to target shooting overlap some other disciplines, doesn't it?
Much of the basis of liberal thought is based on 'contextual viability'. That is, the applicability of anything, either premise or action, depends on how that premise or action is perceived and received by the world in context.
F'rinstance, Ms. Jones in the US history class asks,
"Can someone identify a cause of the Revolutionary War?"
Susie raises her hand and announces,
"Because Bush gave the rich a tax cut."
Ms Jones then nods appreciatively. Not wanting to disturb Susie's sense of self-worth she says,
"Yes. Unreasonable and repressive tax laws, like those emphasized and promoted by the evil Bush, were one cause of the American Revolution."
Johnnie raises his hand, stands and says,
"The British were trying to seize the colonists' firearms at Concord."
Ms Jones looks sorrowful. Johnnie's self-worth be damned.
"No, Johnnie. Guns are evil and can never be mentioned in a positive manner, for any reason. Besides, modern historians like Michael A. Bellesiles, deny the colonists really had any evil guns anyway."
"Ms Jones," Johnny asks, "how did the colonists cede from England?"
"Civil disobedience, hugging trees and sharing our common experience, Johnny. Our independence was a historic and social inevitability."
Johnny then asks "Wasn't Bellesiles censured for fraudulent research and writing?"
Ms Jones looks stern.
"Johnnie, you're a reactionary troublemaker. Go to the principle's office for re-education processing!"
Or, explaining the recent victory of the (relatively) conservative presidential candidate and several congressmen and governors; and the passage of conservative marriage acts:
However, this sort of reasoning cannot be applied to shooting. F'rinstance, bullseye target shooting.
The target is 50 yards away, and primarily consists of a six-inch diameter black circle. The white background is two feet by two feet. The background and black circle are sub-divided into scoring 'rings' (concentric circles) with score values from '10x' to '4'. One stands on one's own two feet, holds the pistol with one hand, and fires ten rounds in ten minutes at the black circle. Scores are counted by award shot holes the value of the 'ring' they impact. Holes on a line are awarded the higher value. Holes outside the '4 ring' are considered visible misses and no points are awarded. A maximum score is 100 point with 10 'x' hits. The 'x' hits are for breaking ties.
There are rules covering what types of pistols may be used, but this is the basic set up.
Why is this so offensive to liberals?
First off, the whole discipline is based on personal responsibility. One must fire one's own rounds at one's own target. Only those rounds impacting within the scoring rings of one's own target count toward the score. If one fires at someone else's target, those rounds are lost. If one chooses not to fire one's rounds within the allotted time, those rounds are lost. In this game, one cannot escape the consequences of one's own actions.
Secondly, the standards and values are not subject to discussion. Arguing that an 'x' ring hit is essentially the same hole as a 4 ring hit will not improve the score. Demonstrating that this particular 4-ring hole is much neater and cleaner and is artistically superior to another's 'x' ring hole does not change the score.
Third, similar to point two, there are rules. Rules may not be changed anytime during the conduct of a match to accommodate those who do not shoot as well as others. On this note, those shooters with highly paid attorneys do not shoot better than those who do not. The rules are so limiting. As an example, one may not shoot into the observation gallery as a 'form of legitimate self-expression.'
Fourth, there are winners, and therefore, losers. The one with the most points wins. That means the one who worked the hardest at learning to shoot; the one who kept his firearm in the best shape; the one who paid the most attention to his ammunition; the one who maintained the greatest degree of self-control and self-discipline beat those who did not. Winners are not rotated. Not everyone is guaranteed to win at some point in the seasonal cycle.
So, those are the reasons liberals don't like shooting, and therefore, guns. Personal responsibility and discipline; Standards and values; Inviolate Rules; Self-esteem must be earned. Stuff like that just does not appeal to liberals. And then, there's that 'stand on their own two feet' thing.
But come to think of it, the objections to target shooting overlap some other disciplines, doesn't it?
