Recently one commenter (Karl from Oklahoma) threatened DG, dared her to "try to take his guns", offered to "throw lead her way" and ominously threatened her directly by saying, "I know where you live."
That kind of conduct is not the conduct of a decent, responsible person. It is not the conduct of someone interested in having a discussion with those whom they disagree and simply disagree about a public policy or a political point. Rather than have that discussion they instead want to demonize their opponents, they instead want to inspire hatred and contempt of the NEIGHBORS. They seem most interested in expressing their anger, in expressing they are "ready to fight" and more importantly, expressing they ready to engage in violence to get their way on a law or when they lose at the ballot box. They are not standing up for democracy, they are standing up for totalitarian tactics. The very same threats, intimidation, and violence they say they'd oppose in any tyrannical government. Beyond being hypocritical, it's shameful, disgusting and wrong. At its best it's dispicable and it's unAmerican to it's core. Those who act this way aren't anything like the patriots they claim to be. They aren't seeking to allow for the function of democracy, the reasoned debate and resolution of issues and the use of law or amendment. Above all, they aren't defending any liberty outside of guns and they are attacking many others.
However, instead of spending more time blasting them, I want to engage in a different dialogue. So, I want to ask three basic questions:
1. Which of our founding liberties do you feel are most important? Please don't just say "liberty", but please be a bit specific. Do you favor free speech over due process.
2. What limit on those liberties exist? For example, should there be any limit on voting? Should there be any limit on speech, on gun ownership? If you accept limits on exercising a vote or on speech, why not on guns? This is the fundamental question which separates the two camps, one feels there are reasonable limits on gun ownership, the other does not. Do those of you who back the NRA accept, as Antonin Scalia has said, that states can in fact institute limits?
3. Lastly, and probably most importantly, what conversation are you willing to have? Any? Do you want to engage with your fellow citizens, your neighbors, in a discussion in which you present the reasonable side of yourself? People want to know, what harm do you see in these laws? Do you think you are less safe? If so, why? Do you think you need them to oppose a tyrannical government? In this nation's 240 year history we have been pretty good about defending democratic principles. What tyranny do you see now that is so much worse than when GW Bush was President? Is it about guns and guns only? Most importantly (as said above) are you willing to discuss it, or, are you willing only to engage in threats?
Be the reasonable person you claim to be, the reasonable person you are within your community and neighborhood. Do you want to prove, logically, that your point is right and have an open mind that you may not have considered all opinions. Or have we gone so far as a nation that those who feel they've lost an argument now simply choose to instead turn to intimidation and violence when they don't get their way. Have you a voice? I'm offering you the chance to speak your mind and promise you I'll listen, so speak if you have the courage. I defend the right of people to defend themselves, I oppose a government acting in a way in which it has no reason or right, so convince me.
Karl has never claimed to be reasonable. He doesn't believe he needs to be reasonable; he is only interested in demanding what he wants.
ReplyDeleteHaving discussed this now with assorted law enforcement officers, I feel very badly for them that they have to deal with these assholes.
To find common ground, you have to give a damn about something more than just what you want.
They don't. They want what they want, and they will threaten and intimidate, injure, or kill to get it.
These are the same right wing extremists who want to shoot people, who want to blow up people, who don't have a problem with the ethics of kidnapping a kid off a bus and shooting the bus driver - in the case of Jimmy Lee Dykes, apparently the bus driver had made repeated efforts to befriend Dykes and be kind to him.
The only strategy they have is to try to bully and intimidate; there is no common ground.
You are talking about moderates; those people are already supporting gun control. They have crossed over from the other side, and we are now the common ground. More than 90% of Americans support universal background checks (no exceptions) and nearly as many support bans on assault style rifles and large capacity magazines. A similar number support strengthening the NICS data base, making it harder for criminals and the dangerously mentally ill and drug users (including alcoholics) to own or use firearms. An increasing number of people, regardless of political party, except for the most extreme, are also supporting mandatory gun insurance.
The discussion has largely taken place already.
The gun nuts have lost. The only question remaining is do they either shoot someone or get shot - or shoot themselves? Or accept they have lost?
Those are their choices.
An additional observation - we have been attempting to establish a meeting of the minds well before the shooting of Gabby Giffords, but it intensified after that incident. It has continued through local mass shootings, and through those that gain national attention like the Aurora, Colorado mass shooting, the Sikh temple shooting, our sign company shooting here in MN, and on and on and on through the Sandy Hook shooting and the two OTHER attempted mass shootings that day. It has been going on for YEARS.
ReplyDeleteThere are more than 80 people who die in this country every day from gun violence. There is an unprecedented number of suicides, especially military related suicides, that involve firearms - and many of those are murder/suicides or have involved domestic abuse and intimidation prior to the end event with a gun.
We have a horrible problem with losing law enforcement officers to firearm violence. We have the incidents like Jimmy Lee Dykes, the Christopher Dorner shootings. I've lost count how many assault style weapons he was reported to have started with, and one by one, left behind before he killed himself.
The right doesn't want to find common ground. They want to prevaricate - a $20 word for lying; they want to distract, they want to make up more ludicrous conspiracy theories, they want to bluster and threaten.
They aren't going to answer you; they are only going to threaten and revile you. The majority of gun owners, the majority of non-gun owners, have all come together to support the changes. While it would be nice to engage these guys, they have no intention of doing so.
They think having a gun means they don't have to find common ground, they can just shoot people with whom they disagree. Or they think they can get away with threatening to do so.
That doesn't appear to have worked out well for our 'friend' who drops by from time to time, Karl. Or any of the other people who think that way. Treason is wrong, and they embrace a failed gun culture that is not free, it is simply lawless.
But sadly, they don't appear to understand the difference. So change will take place without them, not because we excluded them but because they chose to exclude themselves when they rejected being part of the solution to the problem.
So, if they won't talk what then? Nothing? Seek only to embarrass an dname call? How's that working? Has the Senate passed any gun measure? Frankly, it'd be a little harder to say whether they will or won't given how quickly this post was pushed down the page, but even so, it generated response.
ReplyDeleteWe have a few choices, talk, yell, or shoot. I choose talk, you appear to favor yell, others seem to favor shooting. I'd like to avoid that.