So When Is The Right Time To Talk About Guns?
BY Herschel Smith
9 years, 6 months ago
They hadn’t yet caught the person who murdered nine people in their own church in Charleston, South Carolina, and gun defenders were already telling the TV cameras, “Now is not the time to debate gun control.”
So when is the time? After his trial? After the next full moon? After the next slaughter? Or the one after that? Or the one after that?
The truth is it’s never the right time in this country to talk about guns or racism or the mentally ill, or why a toxic stew of all three so often leads to mayhem.
And that’s why nothing changes. Ever. Not after two disenfranchised high school punks murder their classmates. Not after a nut shoots up a midnight movie, killing 12. Not even after 20 children and six staff are slaughtered in their classrooms.
Nothing, no matter how horrific, moves us off the dime, which makes us cowards, fools or both.
It’s infuriating. And I frankly don’t understand it. Why do we accept this? Because the NRA says we have to? That’s crazy.
Oh Andrew, you’ve fallen for the claptrap hook, line and sinker. The NRA has nothing to do with it. We talk about guns here virtually every day, including the day of the shooting or thereabouts. We’re not afraid to engage in a little truth-telling in these parts.
So if we’re going to have a conversation about guns, you and I, let’s get a few boundary conditions set up front. We will never comply with weapons confiscations schemes. We will also never comply with universal background check schemes, or bans against certain kinds of weapons. None of that will be voluntary on our part.
That means that any of the schemes I strongly suspect you advocate will be met with civil war and blood will run on the sidewalks and in the streets. I’m guessing you didn’t know that, or if you did you’re okay with it. So now that nicety is out of the way, I’ll let you fire the first volley – pardon the pun if you will.
On June 22, 2015 at 8:05 am, Josh said:
Oh, wow. A couple points, here.
These people (Andrew and/or his ilk) are still reveling in the war crimes of Sherman and his murderous march through the South. They’re still (and more often as of late) invoking the Civil War, keen to open old wounds and shame the modern South with old wars. I would wager they believe they’d find themselves another Sherman if it came to that. They cannot understand the modern problems with such a “solution.”
They find it relevant to the conversation (and problem of mass murders) that the Confederate flag is waving over a war memorial in South Carolina. They routinely create a caricature out of the modern South to mock and shame. The South is “dead weight” to them (they’ve said exactly that). They think we’re all a bunch of flag waving, slave-owning, hate-filled, fat racists.
They’ve manufactured so, so many straw men to justify their own bigotry and world-view that it’s actually amusing. They’re completely and wholly irrational and inconsistent in their worldview and the arguments they make for it. They look to their politicians and unions to fix their problems, because they’re cut from a stock that has historic dependency on group think.
Let me put all this in a simple metric that sums it all up nicely: Baltimore had 42 murders last month. That’s just the shootings where the victim died. Detroit had over 60. These are gun free zones. Let that sink in.
Their liberal utopias are our murder capitals.
On June 23, 2015 at 6:39 am, Daniel Barger said:
Whenever the subject of ‘gun control’ is brought up by people who seem to be keen on the idea
my first reply is to ask them to define the term. It’s all fine and dandy to call for ‘something to be done’ but when you ask hoplophobes to define in precise terms EXACTLY what the phrase means
half of them will vapor lock. The other half will attempt to describe a set of rules or regulations
that invariably require massive government imposition, specific types or capabilities to be banned and other bizarre and usually vague ideas about how ink on paper will change real world conduct.
Once the ‘definition’ of what they consider to be ‘gun control’ is espoused my immediate response
is to reply ” Oh, You mean VICTIM DISARMAMENT”. Followed by the statement that laws intended to keep weapons from being acquired by people willing to commit all types of felonies
are useless. That we can’t keep drugs out of the hands of middle schoolers and that the only thing we accomplish by outlawing guns is to DISARM VICTIMS. Most hoplophobes will, by that time have devolved into a puddle of steaming stupidity often resorting to massive vowel movements.
Control the language and you control the subject…..I ALWAYS correct the words ‘gun control’ to
‘VICTIM DISARMAMENT’. When you accurately describe the actual result of the intended laws
things look oh so different.
On June 23, 2015 at 5:56 pm, Haywood Jablome said:
I sent the author a note (and, no, I am not holding my breath waiting for a response.). I told him when ideologues (like him) start Their argument with outright lies, there is no conversation to be had. If you don’t acknowledge the facts in your basic premise, there is no chance of an honest discussion. Liberals just don’t get it…you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts!