Real American Liberal
Reactions to mass shootings in the United States have followed a depressing pattern in recent years. People become outraged when a member of Congress is shot in the head, or when twenty-nine people are killed in a Colorado movie theater. But gun advocates always manage to silence the discussion. "It would disrespect the victims to politicize this tragedy," they say with mock sincerity, failing to note that not discussing gun-safety reforms politicizes the tragedy to their advantage.
Within weeks, outrage morphs into fascination with celebrity drug relapses or the next "storm of the century." Then gun-related tragedy strikes again, and the pattern recycles.
But the December Newtown school children shooting has been different. Outrage hasn't given way to short attention spans. A National Rifle Association spokesperson callously said gun-rights advocates should wait for the "Connecticut effect" to dissolve. But it hasn't. Our outrage has turned us around to the obvious fact that our laws aren't helping to prevent these tragedies. Americans are now strongly in favor of common-sense gun-safety reforms.
The NRA does work for my interests, but while this article claims that Americans support gun control, the poll cited is from January of 2013--one month after Newtown. More recent polls show that support is back down to previous levels.
ReplyDeleteAre you saying you are not a member of the NRA and have never given them any money?
DeleteSince the NRA acts in my interests, why shouldn't I?
DeleteJust wondering because you have said you pay no attention to Ted Nugent, thus the NRA.
DeleteTed Nugent is one person. I don't pay him attention. We who support rights don't insist on ideological purity to be a member of an organization.
DeleteSorry, if you subsidize an organization through your dues, you take on the policies and leader statements of the organization.
DeleteWhy would you pay dues to an organization that has a proven racist as a board member? Have you sent a letter to the NRA voicing your opposition to having a racist on their board? It's YOUR convictions on the line.
Ideological purity? You mean race purity, that's what Ted Nugent stands for.
DeleteAnonymous, feel free to write such letters whenever you wish. I have my own battles to fight.
DeleteYou do not disagree with what Nugent says because you are a racist also. Thanks for proving that to everyone.
DeleteThis is how Greg lies and twists things in his favor and hopes no one notices.
Delete"Ted Nugent is one person. I don't pay him attention. We who support rights don't insist on ideological purity to be a member of an organization."
Teddy is a bit more than a "member of an organization."
Nugent is a loud-mouth, and on a number of subjects, I disagree with him. But it's more important to me to fight against you control freaks than to worry about what Nugent says, especially since he's not pushing a bunch of new violations of our rights, so far as I'm aware.
DeleteSo you accept racism to fight a non existing (disarmament) issue.
DeleteThat makes sense, to other racists.
And when caught in a lie, Greg generally tries to pass right by. Notice no explanation for referring to Ted Nugent as a member of the organization.
DeleteMikeb, how many times do I have to tell you that I simply don't care about Ted Nugent?
DeleteHe doesn't care about Ted Nugent, but he sends Ted his money to support what Ted does.
Delete