Chuck Esposito
Inactive
Spartacus,
Some of your 4/20 comments on my 4/19 suggestions seemed a bit contumely, so I trust you will understand if some of my responses seem the same.
On points 1 and 4 it appears you prefer incorrect usage to correct usage because the correct usage doesn’t scan as well (point 1) and correct usage would confuse the majority of USA Today readers (point 4). These reasons may satisfy you, but they would not satisfy any English teachers or Editors I have known.
Your response to item 2 was: “Many if not most of the people we are targeting with this ad have likely never ever heard of the GOA.”
While this may be true, it does not negate the desirability of eliminating the possibility of misperception of association with GOA - a worthy clarity in these times of sparks between SAF (Gottlieb) supporters and GOA (Pratt) supporters.
Just as your response to items 1 and 4 would not satisfy any English teachers I have known, your response to item 3 would not satisfy any history teachers I have known. In an attempt to disabuse you of your notions of the Declaration of Independence, I offer the following:
The Declaration of Independence was a declaration (not a threat, idle or otherwise) and it was not intended to unite the colonists. The primary purpose of the declaration, as stated in the first paragraph, was neither to unite the colonists, nor to declare independence. Rather, it was to announce to the world the reasons for declaring independence. It was intended as a formal announcement of an act already accomplished. As for having the resources to back up the rhetoric, it was more a matter of the rhetoric backing up the resources. It should be remembered that the “shot heard ‘round the world” was fired on April 19, 1775, not on the 4th of July, 1776. During the intervening 15 months, thousands of patriots joined the continental forces and fought for freedom at places like Bunker Hill, where they caused the British to suffer over 1000 casualties, a year before Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence.
You mention that the purpose of the statement is to develop the climate of unity among firearms owners ... a call for the end of apathy and disunity. Certainly, these are laudable purposes, but they should not be confused with the purpose of the Declaration of Independence. You opine that we possess the resources and the strength to stop the pro-tyranny and pro-criminal forces in their tracks and that all we lack is unity. I agree that, by the weight of our numbers, the firearms owners of America do potentially have the resources and strength; however, I disagree that all we lack is unity. We lack much more. Perhaps most significantly, we lack dedication. Not many of us are ready to dedicate “... our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor” to this cause.
Regarding item 5, I disagree with your opinion that this can be argued in the reverse also. E.g., I submit that although most politicians might support proposed legislation styled “An Act To Restrict the Right to Bear Firearms ...” most of them would think twice before endorsing proposed legislation styled “An Act to Infringe on the the Right to Bear Firearms ...” Words do have meanings.
Regarding item 6, I am, and shall continue, to spread the word.
Regarding item 7, I’m one of those who would be more impressed by a page full of names in fine print, than by a smaller number of names in large print.
Of the seven suggestions I made, you accepted one, and rejected six (even though you admitted that I was “definitely correct” and “entirely correct” on two out of the six you rejected) so I felt obliged to see if I could improve the ratio with this posting. You & I could probably continue fencing on this matter till the statement goes to publication, but I’m ready to withdraw and move on. I trust, however, that you would welcome input from other members who might agree with you, or with me. Accordingly, I bequeath my foil to those who agree with me.
Best wishes for success with the project.
Some of your 4/20 comments on my 4/19 suggestions seemed a bit contumely, so I trust you will understand if some of my responses seem the same.
On points 1 and 4 it appears you prefer incorrect usage to correct usage because the correct usage doesn’t scan as well (point 1) and correct usage would confuse the majority of USA Today readers (point 4). These reasons may satisfy you, but they would not satisfy any English teachers or Editors I have known.
Your response to item 2 was: “Many if not most of the people we are targeting with this ad have likely never ever heard of the GOA.”
While this may be true, it does not negate the desirability of eliminating the possibility of misperception of association with GOA - a worthy clarity in these times of sparks between SAF (Gottlieb) supporters and GOA (Pratt) supporters.
Just as your response to items 1 and 4 would not satisfy any English teachers I have known, your response to item 3 would not satisfy any history teachers I have known. In an attempt to disabuse you of your notions of the Declaration of Independence, I offer the following:
The Declaration of Independence was a declaration (not a threat, idle or otherwise) and it was not intended to unite the colonists. The primary purpose of the declaration, as stated in the first paragraph, was neither to unite the colonists, nor to declare independence. Rather, it was to announce to the world the reasons for declaring independence. It was intended as a formal announcement of an act already accomplished. As for having the resources to back up the rhetoric, it was more a matter of the rhetoric backing up the resources. It should be remembered that the “shot heard ‘round the world” was fired on April 19, 1775, not on the 4th of July, 1776. During the intervening 15 months, thousands of patriots joined the continental forces and fought for freedom at places like Bunker Hill, where they caused the British to suffer over 1000 casualties, a year before Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence.
You mention that the purpose of the statement is to develop the climate of unity among firearms owners ... a call for the end of apathy and disunity. Certainly, these are laudable purposes, but they should not be confused with the purpose of the Declaration of Independence. You opine that we possess the resources and the strength to stop the pro-tyranny and pro-criminal forces in their tracks and that all we lack is unity. I agree that, by the weight of our numbers, the firearms owners of America do potentially have the resources and strength; however, I disagree that all we lack is unity. We lack much more. Perhaps most significantly, we lack dedication. Not many of us are ready to dedicate “... our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor” to this cause.
Regarding item 5, I disagree with your opinion that this can be argued in the reverse also. E.g., I submit that although most politicians might support proposed legislation styled “An Act To Restrict the Right to Bear Firearms ...” most of them would think twice before endorsing proposed legislation styled “An Act to Infringe on the the Right to Bear Firearms ...” Words do have meanings.
Regarding item 6, I am, and shall continue, to spread the word.
Regarding item 7, I’m one of those who would be more impressed by a page full of names in fine print, than by a smaller number of names in large print.
Of the seven suggestions I made, you accepted one, and rejected six (even though you admitted that I was “definitely correct” and “entirely correct” on two out of the six you rejected) so I felt obliged to see if I could improve the ratio with this posting. You & I could probably continue fencing on this matter till the statement goes to publication, but I’m ready to withdraw and move on. I trust, however, that you would welcome input from other members who might agree with you, or with me. Accordingly, I bequeath my foil to those who agree with me.
Best wishes for success with the project.
