Is it "the Gun", or is it "the Wacko"?
I thought that with the cold weather, most of the nuts had already fallen from the trees, but Heather Martens' letter to the Strib illustrates how wrong I was. In taking about the murder of the hunters in Wisconsin, Martens, a resident of Minneapolis, writes:
I've never really understood the tact of trying to spin one thing into another, as Ms. Martens tries to do. What little respect they must have for the public at large. I suspect that they have been spinning the issue so long that it's no longer an overt spin, and instead has morphed into an actual belief. I bet if we read that Person X was killed by a blow to the head by a rifle yielded like a baseball bat, Martens and her cohorts would yet again lament the lack of sufficient gun regulation. When they see "Killed" and "Gun" anywhere near eat other in a sentence, it's an automatic trigger (ok... pun intended) to shoot off (yep, again) at the mouth about gun control.
Their inability to recognize that this issue is not about the gun, but instead about the wacko doing the killing speaks volumes, and gives me great hope that they will never succeed.
Here again we have a case of an anti-gun advocate seizing upon a tragedy to made a point that has absolutely no relevance to the situation. I'd love to ask Ms. Martens what amount of background checks, assult weapon bans, conceal carry repeal and gun safety requirements she believes would have prevented a guy who got lost in the woods from flipping out and killing those hunters. I'm sure she'd have some answer, but ultimately, it would all come down to the outright banning of all guns and the repeal of the 2nd amendment.We have chosen a path of minimal gun regulation. In many states, anyone can buy any kind of firearm at a gun show without undergoing a background check. Assault weapons aren't banned. Minnesotans were granted the right to carry firearms in public in 2003. Guns do not have to meet product safety requirements, as other manufactured products do. Guns are present in about half of American households, often unlocked and loaded.
I've never really understood the tact of trying to spin one thing into another, as Ms. Martens tries to do. What little respect they must have for the public at large. I suspect that they have been spinning the issue so long that it's no longer an overt spin, and instead has morphed into an actual belief. I bet if we read that Person X was killed by a blow to the head by a rifle yielded like a baseball bat, Martens and her cohorts would yet again lament the lack of sufficient gun regulation. When they see "Killed" and "Gun" anywhere near eat other in a sentence, it's an automatic trigger (ok... pun intended) to shoot off (yep, again) at the mouth about gun control.
Their inability to recognize that this issue is not about the gun, but instead about the wacko doing the killing speaks volumes, and gives me great hope that they will never succeed.
posted by festivus | 11/24/2004 01:40:00 PM
It seems clear enough that greedy liberals want gun control so that those in power, the liberals, would have a monopoly on the guns. If the liberals had all the guns, instituting socialism would be quite easy. At the very least, the liberals could use their guns to make sure we do not teach grammer school kids about the Declaration of Independence. Liberals are aghast that any truth would be "self evident."
Post a Comment