@
Tom Fury
Antigun thinking is preached as the mainspar of the liberal philosophical platform; they carry it like they own it. ("We'll get the guns..." Michael Douglas: The American President)- How am I supposed to react to threats from the liberal camp that are so pervasive they ooze from the popular media like that?
An imaginary character saying a line in a fictional film that came out twenty years ago isn't exactly "pervasive."
It is this demonization by the liberal side which produces the acrimonious division of which we speak. Can we talk about that?
Yes, let's. But already I would be remiss if I didn't point out that demonization tends to be disingenuous from any corner. When the NRA blamed video games after Sandy Hook, a lot of people with an open mind and a 100-level knowledge of psychology or sociology rolled their eyes ands topped listening.
Antigun Liberals still believe religiously JFK was victim#1 of "Gun Violence."
Without providing detail on definitions of "gun violence" or what you mean by "victim#1," that would generally appear true to me, that JFK was killed by a gun. So was every other assassinated American president. So was Hitler. What's your point?
Perhaps a matter of concern would be for liberals who are not antigun to be less concerned with maintaining their image as good liberals and let their good sense on these issues be heard loudly and clearly within their own powerbase.
I would counter that
all gun owners should "let their good sense be heard loudly" regardless of political stripe. You're certainly aware of, and responding to, the vocal antigun politicians that you perceive as carrying a core plank of liberalism forward. But the vocal ones are rarely the most representative, and certainly not the most idiosyncratic. To respond in knee-jerk ways with the same style can be perceived as doing nothing more than creating noise to those who might be convinced. That's what I meant in regard to nuance in my previous post.
Don't wanna alienate you, but challenge you to be less concerned with your image and more concerned with where your liberalism is taking you...you are shaded by the bombast of your boon companions.
For a stranger on the internet, you're very well informed about me.
"Concerned with image" is the last way those who know me would describe me. Long ago I decided it was suboptimal to rote inform my opinions on those of others, lest they do my thinking for me. It's a technique I would implore anyone to try.
OK: You can be a liberal and not be antigun...recognized. Welcome to THR. My that's a stylish Glock you have there...Carry it in DC, much?
Now, tell THEM...
I have, and will continue to be active for 2A. Now can we please stop putting my motives and ways of thinking on trial? Keep in mind you're doing all of this on the based on my comment about preserving nuance in a very important discussion.
This was a racially-motivated murder; his manifesto makes that clear. He had problems; they came from his racial attitudes, not from his Glock. He purchased that (legally) in response to the voices in his heart that told him the thing to do was to try to start a race war. While the President makes political hay of it and pursues the antigun agenda unfazed by the facts, we are dangerously close to saying this could not be a racially-motivated hate crime because the victims were white...How in the Hell did we get HERE? DBTG
I've not read the manifesto in it's entirety; if you have, could you quote it or link it?
The reports I have read said in part that he was upset with black men and spoke of admiration for the Columbine shooters (who were white). That tends to dilute race as
the root cause, and in any cause it tends to be a futile exercise when one goes to overlay rational thought patterns on an irrational actor.
