We have this rather disgusting tradition in America when it comes to 2nd Amendment issues. I remember when that Brady guy was shot. Actually, it was during an assassination attempt directed at Ronald Reagan, and Brady very heroically stepped in the way. Reagan was shot anyway, but not fatally. Brady ended up with a bullet in his head and severe physical disability.
So his wife would routinely roll him out in a wheelchair and parade him around in front of the press and at rallies to advertise for gun control.
I always felt sorry for him.Thought he was something of a hero. But looking like a helpless, damaged wreck at the gun control functions. And felt doubly sorry for him, that his wife was so enthusiastlic about exploiting him in that way.
Then there was the so-called "trial" of Tim McVeigh, the guy who bombed the federal Murrah building in Oklahoma City. Not saying McVeigh was innocent, but the trial was a complete joke. Get a prosecutor in a wheelchair to awkwardly maneauver himself around the courtroom, self-righteouslessly interrogating "witnesses," most of whom turned out to be relatives of people killed in the bombing.
"Tell me, Mrs. Smith, how do you feel about your husband being blasted into jelly?" Or, "Did you have enough identified body parts left to bury or no?"
What this had to do with McVeigh's guilt or innocence, I don't know. None of those people knew a damn thing about how or why McVeigh committed the crime. They were just "misery props." "See how hurt they are? Don't you want convict somebody just to get even?"
The US mainstream news was so saturated with sympathy unadulterated by any thought and/or logic that I started reading the reports on the trial from European sources. The European press, slaves to socialism as they are, were rather appalled that the event proved to be a "kangaroo court." And they happily crowed about the shocking lack of any kind of intelligent standard in the American judicial system.
So now with this latest rash of mass shootings. Apart from hearing Michelle Malkin argue with the pro-gun control people in Colorado, I didn't really follow the anti-gun legislation that generated a bunch of new restrictions on gun owners in that state. But I'm quite sure the friends and families of survivors, and the survivors themselves, had an opportunity to talk to state legislators and explain in bloody detail all the horrors of that night at the movies, and how events have negtively and permanently altered their lives.
And now about the schoolkids shot in Newtown, Connecticut, and citizens of that town generously taking the time to volunteer to serve as misery props for the Comrade's tirades against gun ownership. Its' really kind of sad. That is to say, it's horrible -- horrible -- what happened with Adam Lanza going off and shooting the place up, killing those kids that had nothing to do with his twisted fantasy life. But I believe it's equally tragic that the parents and families of those dead would promote destroying the concept of individual rights just to be "doing something" about lunatics running loose among the population.
Nothing anyone has proposed so far would have prevented the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. Nothing, except maybe Wayne LaPierre (NRA chief) suggesting the schools have armed guards.
And I think really how low, mean, cynical, and just generally vicious and unethical, for the Comrade to so cheerfully exploit those families' grief to promote his political agenda. Hey, Comrade, do you pack a tiny coffin to roll up onto the stage beside your teleprompters to gain support for gun control? Apparently his ideas aren't persuasive enough otherwise.
It would be probably more effective for the Comrade to address his staunch gun-toting supporters among the gangstah rappahs and drug dealers in the Inner Cities -- most of whom I doubt have or would even dream of taking the time for a background check or to voluntararily register their weapons. That's more the crowd to be filing off the serial numbers on their AR-15s and Glocks, no? Why doesn't he talk to them? They're much more of a problem than NRA members if you follow Chicago crime statistics. You want dead kids? Ride along with Chicago police on Saturday night.
It seems kind of stupid to me, that in the face of people being killed because they could not adequately defend themselves, to demand that no one be allowed to adequately defend himself.
Is this some kind of twisted variation on "turn the other cheek?" Like, "You killed my first grader, here's my kindergartner. We won't defend him, either."
It's based on this crazy -- can't say "logic" so let's call it "dialectic" -- that swears up and down that if you lay down your weapons, your enemies will, too. Does that work in the real world? Seems to me that if you render yourself defenseless, you only invite bullying and intimidation and worse.
So I'm just not getting the pro-gun control arguments, but then I value reasoned debate above Comrade-style cheerleading over the corpses of tiny dead bodies.
I guess I'm just not very susceptible to the notion of "collective guilt."
No comments:
Post a Comment