Gun-rights fanatics are having a field day with the opinion piece penned by the West Virginia Journalism Professor Christopher Swindell last week. They love it when someone on the gun control side says inflammatory and hyperbolic things. They pretend those things were said in earnest and not just to make a point. They act outraged and most of all, they repeat and repeat the out-of-context quotes in a silly attempt to paint gun control folks as raving lunatics.
Not one of those critical comments or blog posts contained the real message of Professor Swindell's essay.
So, to return to reality, all of us. Let's make common sense gun safety a deciding issue for 2014 and beyond. The NRA certainly has. Let's push back. We the People. The 85 percent who support more robust background checks. And when the next domestic terrorist with an assault rifle comes along, we can blame the leaders and fringe of the NRA for arming them.
Now, that's a little different from summarily executing NRA members by firing squad, don't you think? In fact, it sound down right democratic, mentioning the issue of common sense gun safety.
As far as who'll be to blame for the next mass shooting, I've always been in agreement with that.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
I only had to read the opening line "Gun-rights fanatics" to realize that the author is a biased fanatic with his own lack of reasoned intellect. No need to read further.
ReplyDeleteRights aren't subject to a vote. When you understand that, you'll make a lot more sense.
ReplyDeleteOh, come on, Mikeb--that's a little transparent, even for you. You can't simply omit the part where he calls for the firing squad for the NRA, and skip to where he's not advocating genocidal tyranny, and point to is as being "what he really said."
ReplyDeleteIn other words, how is this:
The NRA advocates armed rebellion against the duly elected government of the United States of America. That's treason, and it's worthy of the firing squad.
. . . any less "what he really said," than the bullshit paragraph you quoted?
Can't say it any better than Kurt already has. I'll just add that after Tuscon, the media and the left went after republicans for adding to the polarization of debate and for using "violent imagery" like Palin's cross-hairs. Can you imagine if we engaged in saying "inflammatory and hyperbolic" things to make a point?
DeleteAnyone doing that who wasn't on the liberal, pro-gun-control side would be crucified, but when it's one of your guys, he gets a huge defense of the horrible things he said.
I am sick and tired of this "common sense" phrase that gun control advocates use. First off none of it is based on fact, second there is nothing common about it (the 80, 85, 90, 92% numbers is factually false) and third is it doesn't make sense at all.
ReplyDeleteBase your arguments on facts, not feelings. Real facts, not your own.
Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and they are all different, but assholes have one thing in common, they spew shit.
Feelings work the same way.
Stick to facts, real facts.
Common sense, yeah. Common bullshit.
By the way, your pro-genocide pal, Prof. Swindell, has apologized (woefully inadequately).
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, his apology never mentioned your hypothesis (which you, of course, present as fact). He doesn't claim that he "didn't mean" what he said about executing all four or five million NRA members--that he said it "just to make a point." No, where he erred, he claims to have since learned, is in calling for such a fate for all NRA members, rather than just the "fringe":
But, most important, I was waaayyy too angry to comment on gun safety. I maligned decent NRA members rather than the fringe I was targeting.
Unfortunately, he doesn't bother to identify this "fringe," or provide an estimate of its numbers, so it's hard to be certain how many thousands of executions he now has in mind.
Perhaps you'll be relieved, though, to find out that you no longer have to defend this violent maniac, since he claims (albeit very unconvincingly) to have experienced a conversion that, if he really believes it, would make him a rather awkward fit in your camp:
American freedom is best served with an armed populace.
Frankly, I'm not convinced of his sincerity, and I'm still categorizing him as yet one more of your side's bloodthirsty lunatics.
Well, it wouldn't have been much of an apology if he added, "but, I really didn't mean it." You certainly would have called him on that.
ReplyDeleteI find two things interesting. One, with his exaggerated language, we was trying to malign the "fringe" guys like you. And two, that you're once again pretending to not get obvious things. The guy wrote in the final paragraph, "So, to return to reality," indicating obviously that what he'd written previously was not reality.
Well, it wouldn't have been much of an apology if he added, "but, I really didn't mean it."
DeleteAs I've already said, it isn't "much of an apology" as it is.
One, with his exaggerated language, we [sic--is that a typo, or an ungrammatical indicator that you are with him on this?] was trying to malign the "fringe" guys like you.
Ah--so I'm not supposed to angrily denounce someone calling for my own execution? Don't you often accuse people like me of paranoid delusions and a victim complex? Is that what you're calling this--my reaction to someone explicitly calling for my execution?
The guy wrote in the final paragraph, "So, to return to reality," indicating obviously that what he'd written previously was not reality.
The "reality" to which he is returning is the (unfortunate, in his view) reality that the government is quite unlikely in the foreseeable future to heed his call for mass execution of NRA members.
Tell me, do you really not believe that people own their words--that when caught in an untenable, indefensible position, they can claim that their heinous words (calls for mass executions of people for the "crime" of holding political views he finds unpalatable) were "just hyperbole, to make a point," and that makes it all better?
I haven't seen all that many fringe guys on my side here. Most of us, including the current list of regulars, are simply rational gun-rights supporters. Your lot, on the other hand, are certainly far outside the American mainstream.
DeleteWell, he's still apologizing (and still doing so very weakly), and still not claiming to have been misunderstood, or improperly taken seriously when we should have known that he was really just being idly rhetorical with his call for the execution of NRA's membership:
ReplyDeleteWe're all still haunted by the raid at Waco, Texas. In my zeal for putting a muzzle on the crazies with guns, I foolishly suggested that's what crazies deserve. I was wrong.
He also claims to share NRA members' "love of firearms" (not how I'd describe my view of firearms, but whatever). Does that mean that he owns firearms? Now consider his anger issues--so severe that he advocated (albeit temporarily) the execution of millions of Americans for their political beliefs.
He also claims to support "common sense gun safety laws." I wonder if he thinks such laws would prohibit gun ownership for someone whose anger was so far beyond his ability to control. For that matter, where do you stand on that issue, Mikeb?
Where do I stand on what issue?
DeleteWhere do I stand on what issue?
DeleteI thought that was pretty obvious, but to help you catch up, the issue to which I refer is whether or not you think this hateful lunatic with his uncontrollable rage should have access to firearms.