I recently read an editorial by New York Times conservative columnist David Brooks and felt the need to comment on it. The article was entitled "Respect First, Then Gun Control." Some bits which stood out are as follows:
- "This has been an emotional week. We greet tragedies like the school shooting in Florida with shock, sadness, mourning and grief that turns into indignation and rage. The anger inevitably gets directed at the N.R.A., those who support gun rights, and the politicians who refuse to do anything while children die."
- "If there's one thing we've learned, it is that guns have become a cultural flash point in a nation that is unequal and divided. The people who defend gun rights believe that snobbish elites look down on their morals and want to destroy their culture. If we end up telling such people that they and their guns are despicable, they will just despise us back and dig in their heels."
- "So if you want to stop school shootings it's not enough just to vent and march. It's necessary to let people from Red America lead the way, and to show respect to gun owners at all points."
- "There has to be trust and respect first. Then we can strike a compromise on guns as guns, and not some sacred cross in the culture war."
Look, for a conservative columnist, I typically don't have a big problem with David Brooks. While I often times wonder what in the world he's trying to get at, he's much more moderate and tolerable than other such individuals. When it comes to this article, though, what in the hell was the guy thinking? I'm not going to be naive and pretend that Brooks is the only conservative to think such things, but once again, what in the hell was he thinking?
Really? This is about respecting the feelings of gun owners? Seventeen individuals are shot and killed in yet another mass shooting and the first thing we're to do is send our thoughts and prayers to gun owners, because they're going through such a difficult time? Give me a frickin' break...
I'm really getting fed up with post-mass shooting conservative talking points:
- "Let's do the victims a service and not politicize the tragedy."
- "All we can do is send our thoughts and prayers."
- "Let's have a moment of silence for the victims."
- "It's too soon to talk about this."
- ...and now, "Hey, what about gun owners' feelings?"
This isn't about politics. This is about life. Who really cares which party heads a successful bill to increase gun regulations so long as it's passed and effective? The only demographic making gun violence political is Congressional Republicans, because the only reason they cower in fear at the mere thought of gun reform is politics. Their jobs, which are supposed to be temporary and voluntary positions to serve the public, are apparently of greater importance than saving lives.
Also, let's not beat around the bush here; moments of silence and thoughts and prayers don't work. A politician saying they're sorry such a horrific event occurred in a family's life and that their heart goes out to the family doesn't bring that beloved family member back.
I'm sorry, but it's never soon to talk about reducing gun violence. This is just a tactic used by the Republican Party to, you guessed it, play politics. Step 1: Say it's too soon to talk about gun reform. Step 2: Await the media to start paying attention to other issues. Step 3: Attempt to ignore the matter until the next mass shooting occurs. Step 4: Go back to Step 1. The Columbine shooting happened 19 years ago, yet according to many Congressional Republicans, it's still too soon to talk about that tragedy.
Newsflash: Guns don't have feelings. Guns are simply objects, with the purpose to destroy what's in their paths, possessing less emotion than a ripped up sock named Corpse. Gun reform isn't about the fears and feelings of gun owners. If they feel an emotional attachment to a device used to destroy, that's their own problem and I recommend counseling. Also, if they're law-abiding citizens, there's less chance of additional gun regulations impacting them than of Iceland and Greenland being true to their names. If someone has a clean background and the proper training, they should be able to purchase and own a gun, but don't give me this crap about gun owners' feelings. Seventeen families are one shorter because of guns. Guns may be an object and not have a voice in the matter, but because of them, neither do the seventeen individuals whom were slaughtered by them at Marjory Stoneman Douglas in Parkland, Florida. Every person should be able to own a gun? No, every child should be able to live life.
https://www.salon.com/2018/02/20/david-brooks-grand-gun-control-idea-give-nra-supporters-what-they-want/
https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2018/02/david-brooks-wants-a-safe-space-for-the-nra.html
- "This has been an emotional week. We greet tragedies like the school shooting in Florida with shock, sadness, mourning and grief that turns into indignation and rage. The anger inevitably gets directed at the N.R.A., those who support gun rights, and the politicians who refuse to do anything while children die."
- "If there's one thing we've learned, it is that guns have become a cultural flash point in a nation that is unequal and divided. The people who defend gun rights believe that snobbish elites look down on their morals and want to destroy their culture. If we end up telling such people that they and their guns are despicable, they will just despise us back and dig in their heels."
- "So if you want to stop school shootings it's not enough just to vent and march. It's necessary to let people from Red America lead the way, and to show respect to gun owners at all points."
- "There has to be trust and respect first. Then we can strike a compromise on guns as guns, and not some sacred cross in the culture war."
Look, for a conservative columnist, I typically don't have a big problem with David Brooks. While I often times wonder what in the world he's trying to get at, he's much more moderate and tolerable than other such individuals. When it comes to this article, though, what in the hell was the guy thinking? I'm not going to be naive and pretend that Brooks is the only conservative to think such things, but once again, what in the hell was he thinking?
Really? This is about respecting the feelings of gun owners? Seventeen individuals are shot and killed in yet another mass shooting and the first thing we're to do is send our thoughts and prayers to gun owners, because they're going through such a difficult time? Give me a frickin' break...
I'm really getting fed up with post-mass shooting conservative talking points:
- "Let's do the victims a service and not politicize the tragedy."
- "All we can do is send our thoughts and prayers."
- "Let's have a moment of silence for the victims."
- "It's too soon to talk about this."
- ...and now, "Hey, what about gun owners' feelings?"
This isn't about politics. This is about life. Who really cares which party heads a successful bill to increase gun regulations so long as it's passed and effective? The only demographic making gun violence political is Congressional Republicans, because the only reason they cower in fear at the mere thought of gun reform is politics. Their jobs, which are supposed to be temporary and voluntary positions to serve the public, are apparently of greater importance than saving lives.
Also, let's not beat around the bush here; moments of silence and thoughts and prayers don't work. A politician saying they're sorry such a horrific event occurred in a family's life and that their heart goes out to the family doesn't bring that beloved family member back.
I'm sorry, but it's never soon to talk about reducing gun violence. This is just a tactic used by the Republican Party to, you guessed it, play politics. Step 1: Say it's too soon to talk about gun reform. Step 2: Await the media to start paying attention to other issues. Step 3: Attempt to ignore the matter until the next mass shooting occurs. Step 4: Go back to Step 1. The Columbine shooting happened 19 years ago, yet according to many Congressional Republicans, it's still too soon to talk about that tragedy.
Newsflash: Guns don't have feelings. Guns are simply objects, with the purpose to destroy what's in their paths, possessing less emotion than a ripped up sock named Corpse. Gun reform isn't about the fears and feelings of gun owners. If they feel an emotional attachment to a device used to destroy, that's their own problem and I recommend counseling. Also, if they're law-abiding citizens, there's less chance of additional gun regulations impacting them than of Iceland and Greenland being true to their names. If someone has a clean background and the proper training, they should be able to purchase and own a gun, but don't give me this crap about gun owners' feelings. Seventeen families are one shorter because of guns. Guns may be an object and not have a voice in the matter, but because of them, neither do the seventeen individuals whom were slaughtered by them at Marjory Stoneman Douglas in Parkland, Florida. Every person should be able to own a gun? No, every child should be able to live life.
https://www.salon.com/2018/02/20/david-brooks-grand-gun-control-idea-give-nra-supporters-what-they-want/
https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2018/02/david-brooks-wants-a-safe-space-for-the-nra.html
Comments
Post a Comment