We Might Agree With Frank Luntz About Something, Possibly, But Probably Not
And they say Christmas comes but once a year. Is this is a stopped-clock-is-right-twice-a-day thing though? Possibly! Also it is a no-brainer, but still, we agree with Frank Luntz about something so we will note it because this is significant due to the fact of it never happening, really. The video starts with the CBS anchor lady asking him what he thinks about the NRA's batshit crazy suggestion that we have a person with a gun in every school, protecting the kids. Frank notes that well, "this is not the language" that the NRA used, and if it were the language that the NRA used, he'd be "even more opposed to it." (Why is that, we wonder? Is it not the idea itself that matters? Or just the language used to express said idea?) But anyway, he is opposed to it, and also too, the NRA is "not listening" to the American public who wants LESS guns in school, and who also agrees with the Second Amendment but doesn't agree with the idea that every gun should be available at every place, at every time, to every person.
It is, of course, interesting to hear Frank lament that the NRA is not listening to the American public, since his whole modus operandi seems to revolve around a) listening to the American public, b) using that information to help the GOP adjust messaging, and then c) re-packaging GOP ideas back to the American public with cosmetic, rather than substantive changes, so that Americans think that their concerns have been heard and policies have been adjusted accordingly.
So does he want the NRA to listen to the American public so they can change the language they use to express their crappy ideas, or so that they can change the crappy ideas themselves? This is the part where we might stop agreeing with Frank, but we're not sure because he departs from the realm of the concrete and starts speaking in abstractions, enumerating all the "common sense" approaches that we can all get behind. Guess what they are. Guess! Did you guess? Let's see if you were right. They include:
1. background checks at guns shows (the nature and extent of which, of course, are unspoken)
2. law abiding people retaining their right to own a weapon (the kind of weapon of course, is unstated; so too is the term 'law-abiding')
3. but not 'everyone' at 'every time' should have 'every type' of weapon (the times, persons, and weapons that are not included in the scope of the 2nd Amendment, of course, is left up to the imagination.)
How many did you get right??