December 17, 2012
SO IF WE’RE GOING TO HAVE A “NATIONAL CONVERSATION ON GUNS,” HERE ARE SOME OPENERS:
Why do people who favor gun-control call people who disagree with them murderers or accomplices to murder? Is that constructive?
Would any of the various proposals have actually prevented the tragedy that is the supposed reason for them?
When you say you hope that this event will finally change the debate, do you really mean that you hope you can use emotionalism and blood-libel-bullying to get your way on political issues that were losers in the past?
If you’re a media member or politician, do you have armed security? Do you have a permit for a gun yourself? (I’m asking you Dianne Feinstein!) If so, what makes your life more valuable than other people’s?
Do you know the difference between an automatic weapon and a semi-automatic weapon? Do your public statements reflect that difference?
If guns cause murder, why have murder rates fallen as gun sales have skyrocketed?
Have you talked about “Fast and Furious?” Do you even know what it is? Do you care less when brown people die?
When you say that “we” need to change, how are you planning to change? Does your change involve any actual sacrifice on your part?
Let me know when you’re ready to talk about these things. We’ll have a conversation.
UPDATE: John Lucas emails:
Joe Scarborough, who claims to be a “proud NRA member” just said there is no reason to allow someone to have an “assault weapon” that shoots “30 rounds a second.”
The ignorance is appalling.
Well, yes. It’s MSNBC. But it is interesting that Scarborough — like Mark Shields and Rupert Murdoch — seems entirely ignorant of actual gun law. But to be fair, the National Firearms Act has only been around since 1934.